Suman Abbi v. The Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, a Librarian in the respondent No.2/Maharaja Agrasen Model School. By the writ petition, challenge is laid to the initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner by means of the memorandum dated 15.4.2013. 2013:DHC:2353

2. Before I advert to the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to state that departmental proceedings can only be stayed if there is a fundamental lack of jurisdiction or such other strong basis for stopping the continuation of the departmental proceedings. It is possible that the authority conducing the enquiry may not have jurisdiction or the charges could already have been adjudicated before or ex facie without further argument, the charges even if accepted as correct, no infraction is made out. This Court does not and cannot sit as an Enquiry Officer to look into the merits of the charges and which is a function which is reserved for the departmental authorities.

3. The following contentions have been urged before me on behalf of the petitioner:-

(i) With respect to Articles IV and V in the memorandum dated

15.4.2013, it is contended that an earlier writ petition, namely W.P.(C) No.4050/2003 has already been filed by the petitioner and since these are issues in the said writ petition, no departmental proceedings can be initiated.

(ii) The other Article of Charges pertain to enquiry which already is being conducted by the Director of Education/respondent No.1 on the complaints of the petitioner against the respondent No.2/school and therefore departmental proceedings cannot be initiated on the said facts.

(iii) There is lack of jurisdiction for continuation of the departmental proceedings because Rule 120(1) (a) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 requires that Article of Charges must be framed by the Disciplinary Authority and since the memorandum dated 15.4.2013 shows that a Departmental Committee has yet to be constituted, therefore, there is quite clearly a lack of jurisdiction for continuation of departmental enquiry.

4. So far as the first argument that the petitioner herself has filed a writ petition in which the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent No.2school with respect to Article of Charges IV and V, in my opinion that is not a ground for staying of the departmental proceedings. If I permit such an argument to be urged for being accepted it would mean that any employee can pre-empt the departmental proceedings by simply filing a writ petition and raising issues which the school proposes to enquire in the departmental proceedings. For the sake of completion of narration I must state that it is not as if writ petition has been decided and the issues have been found in favour of the petitioner for the same to be rejected for commencement of the departmental enquiry on the said Articles of Charges IV and V contained in the memorandum dated 15.4.2013. The first argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is therefore rejected.

5. The second argument is that on the complaints made by the petitioner, the Director of Education is conducting an enquiry and therefore with respect to the said issues, and which are the subject matter of Articles I and II of the memorandum dated 15.4.2013, departmental proceedings cannot be initiated. Once again this argument is without any merit because merely if an employee makes a complaint against the school and the Director of Education is enquiring into the same there is no law nor is there any provision in the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 that the school cannot commence departmental proceedings with respect to such charges. Further I may also note that the petitioner had made similar allegations against the school even earlier and such allegations were enquired into by an Enquiring Committee which comprised of two Principals of different schools, and the said committee of two Principals (including one lady Principal) gave report against the petitioner and in favour of respondent No.2-school. Merely because the petitioner has again chosen to make complaint and Director of Education is again looking into the same cannot mean that by making endless complaints to the Director of Education, school can be prevented from initiating departmental enquiry against an employee/teacher. This argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is also therefore rejected.

6. I may at this stage hasten to clarify that qua the first two arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner I am not stating one way or the other for and against the petitioner or the respondent No.2-school on merits of the Article of Charges and these Article of Charges would be enquired into during the departmental proceedings wherein the petitioner will have complete liberty to put forth her defence.

7. So far as the third argument is concerned the same prima facie appeared to have merits on the first blush. This is because as per Rule 120 (1)(a) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 it is only the Disciplinary Authority which has to frame the charges. The memorandum dated 15.4.2013, however, uses the expression that a Disciplinary Committee is proposed to be formed. It is therefore contended on behalf of the petitioner that Article of Charges could not have been framed and served vide memorandum dated 15.4.2013 if the Disciplinary Committee was yet to be formed.

8. This argument however urged on behalf of the petitioner has been dealt with by the respondent No.2-school in its response dated 23.4.2013 given to the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority was constituted and the Article of Charges were framed with the approval of the Disciplinary Committee. To be extra sure, however, I direct that before taking any further steps in the departmental proceedings the respondent No.2-school will give copy of the order passed by the appropriate authority i.e the Managing Committee of the respondent No.2-school whereby the Disciplinary Authority was constituted. This direction is required because the Article of Charges have to be framed by the Disciplinary Authority. I may however add that it will be open to the Disciplinary Authority to ratify the Article of Charges against the petitioner assuming there was no Disciplinary Authority constituted when the memorandum dated 15.4.2013 was sent inasmuch as the departmental proceedings have yet not even commenced and I do not find that even the first date of hearing has been fixed in the departmental proceedings.

9. Subject to aforesaid observations, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. MAY 07, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne