RAJESH MATHEWS Vs. BLUEBELLS INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant writ petition, the petitioner - hereinafter to be referred as 'Mathews', in effect, seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus for being released the entire amounts towards salary for the period he remained under suspension w.e.f 21.03.2011 till the date of his superannuation on 31.12.2016 for the post of TGT-Music with the respondent No.1 - Bluebells School International, in short ' the school'. Though, in the petition, Mathews has also vaguely averred for entire retiral benefits remaining payable to him by the school, no specific claim therefor is either stated in the writ petition nor pointed out during the course of hearing. Any reference thereto is therefore, not called for.

(2.) Relevant to the subject, the facts emerging from the record are that Mathews was initially appointed by the school as a primary teacher-Music on ad hoc basis in the year 1993. He was given regular appointment w.e.f. 01.10.1994. In the year 1995, he was promoted as TGT-Music to impart teaching to the students in Music - a part of the Cultural Department or the activities of the school. On 21.03.2011, he was put under suspension. He was served with a charge sheet in May, 2011 and a departmental inquiry ensued, which concluded with the submission of the inquiry report dated 05.11.2015 by the Inquiry Officer Sh.V.M.Dutta. It also transpires that from the date of suspension till the date of conclusion of the inquiry on 05.11.2015, Mathews had approached this Court a few times by way of diverse writ petitions. First of such actions by him was by way of W.P.(C) No.6588/2011 'Rajesh Mathews vs. Bluebells School (International) & Anr.' The said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 07.10.2013 in view of the fact that the school was not a minority school. Then, by way of W.P.(C) No.8672/2011 'Rajesh Mathews vs. Director of Education & Ors.', Mathews sought change of the Inquiry Officer Sh.R.V.Saxena on the ground of bias. It was disposed of by the Court on 13.12.2011, when the school came forward to decide the representation dated 24.11.2011 made by Mathews relating to the change of Inquiry Officer and to not to proceed with the inquiry till the disposal thereof. It appears, thereafter, the Departmental Committee of the school without adverting to the merits of the allegations made for change of Inquiry Officer, appointed another Inquiry Officer Sh.V.M.Dutta. During the course of such proceedings, Mathews sought to substitute his Defence Assistant. Initially, he had appointed one Ms.Sushmita Mitra as his Defence Assistant. Later, he sought to appoint his wife Ms.Rita Mathews as his Defence Assistant, which the Inquiry Officer declined on the premise that Ms.Rita Mathews was neither an employee of the school nor had retired from the School. It resulted into fling of another W.P.(C) 632/2012 'Rajesh Mathews vs. Director of Education & Ors.'. It appears, during the pendency of this writ petition, Mathews filed Cont. Case (C) No. 403/2012 'Rajesh Mathews vs. V.M.Dutta', when this petition was treated to be an application under Section 151 CPC and a direction issued to the Inquiry Officer to not to proceed with the inquiry. On 07.10.2013, W.P.(C) 632/2012 came to be allowed by the ld. Single Judge. The school feeling aggrieved thereof, preferred LPA 856/2013 'Managing Committee & Ors. vs. Rajesh Mathews & Ors.'. It was dismissed by the Division Bench on 18.11.2013 with the observations and the reservations provided thereunder. Thereafter, at some stage, the Departmental Committee amended the statement of imputation of Articles of Charges. On this, Mathews again approached the Court by way of W.P.(C) 5863/2015 Rajesh Mathews v. Managing Committee, Bluebells International School. It was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.05.2015, with the liberty reserved to Mathews to extend challenge on merits in accordance with law at an appropriate stage. On the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 05.11.2015. As per the inquiry report, most of the charges stood proved. Here, it may only be noted that amongst others Ms.Suman Kumar - the Principal of the school had appeared as one of the management witnesses in the inquiry proceedings. The inquiry report was served upon Mathews sometime in December, 2015. Mathews acknowledged the report thereof and on the indulgence given submitted his response dated 01.02.2016. In the response so given, Mathews inter alia raised objection as regards the Principal of the School having appeared as a witness in the inquiry proceedings and then being also a member of the Disciplinary Committee. In other words, the constitution of the Disciplinary Committee was put to question by Mathews adverting to Rule 118 of the Delhi School Education Act in short 'the Act, 1973' and The Delhi School Education Rules 1973, in short 'the Rules, 1973'. On this, the school sought the intervention of the Deputy Director of Education for associating HOS of another School in the Disciplinary Committee inasmuch as the inquiry report was pending evaluation before the Disciplinary Committee. For the purpose, the Deputy Director of Education, South-East was requested to nominate an HOS of his choice from any other School. To the similar effect, a few reminders were sent to him and thereafter, to the Director of Education, Directorate of Education by the School. Last of such communication on record addressed to the Director of Education is dated 07.12.2016. In the meantime, Mathews attained the age of 60 years as on 26.12.2016 and was retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.2016. Thus, premised on the inquiry report, no punishment came to be imposed on Mathews till his superannuation on 31.12.2016. The Disciplinary Committee in its meeting of 18.02.2017 took view that the charges stood proved against Mathews and that, a punishment of 'compulsory retirement from service' should be awarded to Mathews, but, in view of the objections raised by Mathews that he had already attained the age of superannuation and stood retired from service from 31.12.2016, no punitive action could be taken against him. It therefore decided to refer the matter to the Managing Board of the School for consideration and advise. On the matter so referred, the Board in its meeting of 25.02.2017 inter alia took decision that Mathews was not entitled to any other and / or further payment other than the subsistence allowances paid to him for the period of his suspension till his superannuation i.e. 31.12.2016 and that, such period be treated as leave without pay. Mathews was served with Memorandum dated 17.05.2017 enclosing therewith a cheque no.074370 dated 17th May 2017 for Rs.6,74,585/- (Rupees Six Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Five Only) drawn on Bank of Baroda towards payment of Gratuity and another cheque no.006147 dated 17th May 2017 for Rs.30,856 (Rupees Thirty Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Six Only) towards encashment of balance earned leave. By the instant petition, Mathews seeks entire amounts towards salary sans the subsistence allowance paid for the period of suspension primarily on the premise that the school had failed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings till the time of his superannuation on 31.12.2016 and thereby, the inquiry lapsed.

(3.) According to the School, Mathews was not entitled to any payment other than the subsistence allowance paid in view of the decision taken by its Managing Board on 25.02.2017. The school also attributes delay in conclusion of the inquiry to Mathews. According to the School, the inquiry could not proceed for almost two years from February, 2012 to December, 2013 on account of the diverse proceedings initiated by Mathews and the interim orders passed by the Court. In addition thereto, the school asserts that it was only on account of the objections raised by Mathews - for the Principal of the school having appeared as a witness in the inquiry proceedings, the matter was taken up with the Directorate of Education for nomination of Head of another school to be a member of the Disciplinary Committee but it did not evoke any response in spite of the repeated reminders dated 18.03.2016, 07.04.2016, 12.05.2016, 20.06.2016, 01.08.2016, 05.10.2016, 22.11.2016 and 07.12.2016. Here, it may only be noted that the respondent No.3 - Director of Education has not chosen to file any counter affidavit in the instant proceedings stating that it was only a pro forma party. Be that as it may, the school also points out for having paid Mathews amounts towards gratuity and the encashment of the leave by way of cheques.