Delhi High Court: In a case wherein the petitioner had challenged the dismissal order against him, a Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna, J.*, opined that no employee of a recognized private school should be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank or his services be otherwise terminated, except with the prior approval of Directorate of Education (‘DOE’). Thus, the Court set aside the dismissal order and directed that compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 be released to the petitioner.
Background
The petitioner worked as a laboratory attendant in chemistry department of the respondent and the present case had arisen from a complaint received against the petitioner on 8-5-2009, wherein the complainant had alleged that the petitioner impersonated himself as PGT Chemistry and lured the complainant to pay him Rs. 2,00,000, with a promise of getting her appointed as TGT Physical Education through his good contacts with the School Managing Committee. The petitioner accepted payment of Rs. 5,00,00 in cash and Rs. 1,50,000 by cheque. The petitioner further gave her a cheque of Rs. 2,00,000 as guarantee which was dishonored on the ground of insufficient funds.
Later, an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner, and four charges were levelled against him. The inquiry had found the petitioner guilty of all charges except one, which alleged that he impersonated as PGT chemistry. The petitioner’s representation was found to be unsatisfactory and a penalty of dismissal was imposed on him vide order dated 14-10-2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before Delhi School Tribunal (‘DST’), however, the same was also dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition was filed for quashing the order passed by DST, whereby dismissal order against the petitioner dated 14-10-2009 issued by Respondent 1, was upheld.
The petitioner contented that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by Respondent 1, violated Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (‘DSE Act’), which mandated that a dismissal order could only be passed after taking prior approval of the DOE. On the other hand, it was contended by the respondent that no prior approval of DOE was required before passing the dismissal order against the petitioner, since at the time of passing of the dismissal order dated 14-10-2009, DOE was not entertaining any application seeking approval for taking disciplinary action against employees of private unaided schools.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that though the charge of impersonation as a Chemistry teacher was not established against the petitioner, however, the other charges with respect to taking money from the complainant were proved.
On considering the issue of complaints levelled against the petitioner, the Court opined that “the Court would not go into sufficiency or adequacy of evidence before the Enquiry Officer. If an enquiry had been held in accordance with the procedure established by law in consonance with the principles of natural justice, the findings cannot be interfered with”.
On considering the main issue before the Court that whether the prior approval of DOE was required before passing the dismissal order against the petitioner, the Court opined “that in terms of Section 8(2) of the DSE Act, approval of the DOE was mandatory before passing an order of termination or dismissal of an employee. The respondent school, being a recognised unaided private school, was also bound by the provisions of the DSE Act which mandated prior approval of the DOE before termination of an employee”.
The Court relied on Raj Kumar v. Directorate of Education (‘Raj Kumar’), (2016) 6 SCC 541; Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava, (2020) 14 SCC 449 and Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 54, wherein the Supreme Court had held that in case of termination of an employee of a recognised institution, prior approval of the DOE or an Officer authorised by him in this behalf had to be obtained. Thus, this Court opined that “no employee of a recognized private school should be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank or his services be otherwise terminated, except with the prior approval of DOE”.
Thus, the Court held that the dismissal order against the petitioner having been passed without prior approval of the DOE, could not be sustained. The Court further noted that during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation. Therefore, the Court held that ends of justice would be met if petitioner was directed to be paid compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal order and directed that compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 be released to the petitioner by Respondent 1 within a period of six weeks, failing which, the same shall carry simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment. The Court thus, disposed of the present writ petition.
[Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. Air Force School, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4348, decided on 25-7-2023]
*Judgment by – Justice Mini Pushkarna
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: S. Saeed A. Qadri, Kareena Fareed, Advocate;
For Respondents: Nikhil Palli,; Kaunain Fatima, Pallavi Singh, Advocates; Satyakam, Additional Standing Counsel, GNCTD.
