Background Facts

The appellant was working as an Assistant Teacher at Saai Memorial Girls School, a private unaided school. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her. A charge sheet was issued containing allegations of inefficiency in discharging duties, misbehaviour with colleagues, and lack of knowledge of English basics.

An Inquiry Officer was appointed who held Articles I to III of the charges as proved and Article IV as partly proved. An order was issued by the Manager of the School imposing the penalty of removal from service upon the appellant. The appellant appealed before the Delhi School Tribunal which dismissed her appeal. Aggrieved by the same, she filed a writ petition which was dismissed by a Single Judge.

Aggrieved, she filed the Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.

It was argued by the appellant that the order of dismissal from service could not have been passed without obtaining written approval from the Director of Education which is required under Section 8(2) of the DSE Act, 1973. It was contended that the Principal and Vice Principal of the School, who had themselves been complainants against her, deposed as witnesses in the inquiry and were also part of the Disciplinary Authority.

On the other hand, it was argued by the School that the Inquiry Report was detailed and reasoned. Further, that the Disciplinary Authority had agreed with the Inquiry Officer and was not required to pass another detailed order. It was further argued that the appellant was given adequate opportunity to file documents in her support which she did not utilize. It was also contended that the complaints of the parents established that the appellant was not good at teaching.

Findings and observations of the court

It was noted by the court that Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 requires prior approval of the Director of Education before imposing any major penalty on an employee of a private unaided school.

It was further observed that the Principal and Vice Principal could not have been part of the Disciplinary Authority as they had deposed as witnesses against the appellant because the charges included allegations of misbehaviour against them.

It was held that the order imposing punishment was completely unreasoned, as it did not cover the points raised by the appellant in response to the show cause notice. Hence, the de novo proceedings were directed by the Division Bench wherein it was ordered that the Disciplinary Authority must consider proportionality, whether the misconduct attributed to the appellant was so serious as to warrant her removal from service.

It was further held by the Division Bench that the order dismissing the appellant from service was issued without prior approval of the Directorate of Education, therefore it violated Section 8(2) of the DSE Act. Hence it was set aside by the Division Bench. It was directed by the Division Bench to reinstate the appellant with continuity of service and 50% back wages, subject to the outcome of de novo inquiry proceedings.

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal filed by the appellant-Teacher was disposed of by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Rekha Sabharwal v. Management of Saai Memorial Girls School & Ors.

Case No. : LPA 266/2017 and LPA 268/2017

Counsel for the Appellant : Aditya Singla, Supriya Juneja, Arya Suresh Nair and Arvind Menon, Advs. along with Appellant in person

Counsel for the Respondents : Palak Rohmetra, Adv.