Unproven Misconduct No Ground To Deny Back Wages Entirely; Delhi HC Grants 50% Relief

Background Facts

The Petitioner was an Assistant Teacher at New Saraswati Public Secondary School. He was originally appointed on 15th October 1993. His services were terminated on 16th October 2002 and 14th November 2002. The Education Officer directed his reinstatement in 2003 and 2004, but the Directorate granted approval to termination in 2004. The Delhi School Tribunal dismissed his appeal in 2009. This Court set aside the termination on 15th February 2017, holding it illegal. The School's appeal was dismissed.

The petitioner reported for duty but he was denied joining. It led to contempt proceedings. He eventually joined in August 2017, and the School reinstated him with effect from 16th October 2002. However, the Managing Committee rejected his back wages claim under Rule 121. The School later initiated disciplinary proceedings pursuant to liberty reserved by the Division Bench. It resulted in the removal of petitioner from service in 2023.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi.

It was contended by the petitioner that the order rejecting his back wages claim under Rule 121 was illegal and unsustainable. It was argued that the Managing Committee wrongly proceeded on the footing that the petitioner had used a fake certificate for the computer post, treating that as the cause of his absence, without any adjudication on that question.

It was further submitted that he had remained entirely unemployed from 16th October 2002 to 10th August 2017 and had reported for duty immediately upon reinstatement but was denied joining. It was further contended that the Division Bench had left the question of his qualification open only for a lawful future inquiry, and the Managing Committee could not assume the result of that exercise while deciding his Rule 121 representation.

On the other hand it was argued by the School that the writ petition does not lie against an unaided private school. It was further contended that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for his original appointment as an Assistant Teacher in 1993. The School relied upon Ruchika Rai Madan v. Directorate of Education to support the employer's right to verify qualifications and inquire into suspected forged documents.

It was also argued that the petitioner's absence was attributable to his own conduct in using a fake certificate for the computer post, and that the Managing Committee was justified in rejecting the back wages claim on that basis.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the petitioner's Rule 121 representation was rejected on the ground that he used a fake certificate for the computer post. It was observed by the Court that the Division Bench expressly left open the question of the petitioner's eligibility as an Assistant Teacher for examination in accordance with law. Therefore, the Managing Committee could not assume that question as already concluded against him while deciding the Rule 121 representation.

It was further observed that the School's earlier order accepted that the petitioner would have continued as an Assistant Teacher if there had been no issue with his computer certificate. Therefore, the School could not now claim that his original appointment as Assistant Teacher was invalid.

It was further held by the Court that Rule 121 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 requires the Managing Committee to make a reasoned determination on back wages and that the proviso permits reduction only for delay directly attributable to the employee, after an opportunity of representation and for reasons recorded in writing.

The case of Sunil Sikri v. Guru Harkrishan Public School was relied upon wherein it was held that the power under Rule 121 is a “power coupled with duty” requiring fair exercise after considering all relevant inputs.

It was observed by the Court that the petitioner remained unemployed and reported for duty when reinstatement was ordered, and no material of gainful employment was produced by the School.

The case of Ram Bahadur Pandey v. State of Uttarakhand was distinguished by the Court, it was noted that in that case the irregularity in appointment was already before the Court, whereas here the Division Bench had only left the question open.

It was held by the Court that full exoneration under Rule 121(2) was not established, but denial of all back wages on the basis of unproved wrongdoing was equally unjustified. Therefore, it was held that the petitioner shall be paid 50% of the back wages and admissible allowances for the period from 16th October 2002 to 14th February 2017, with notional progression of pay. The order dated 5th August 2017 was set aside by the Court.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Court.

Case Name : Rajinder Kumar Gupta v. The Chief Secretary, Government of NCT Delhi and Ors.

Case No. : W.P.(C) 12805/2019

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sunieta Ojha, Pragti Bhatia and Vasudha Priyansha, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondents : Mahesh Bhardwaj, Sandeep Singh Nainwal and Vivek Lamba