JITENDER KUMAR GOEL Vs. DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, who was working as a Superintendent in the D.A.V. Public School, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi (School?), Respondent No. 3, has challenged in this writ petition an order dated 30 th April 1998 placing him under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. He also challenged an order dated 7 th August 1998 issued by the School rejecting his allegation of bias against the Inquiry Officer (IO?).

(2.) While directing notice to issue in this petition on 11 th November 1998 an interim order was passed by this Court restraining the IO from making any final report. On the next date, i.e., 12 th February 1999 this Court was informed that the IO had prepared a final report on 26 th October 1998. On 25 th February 1999 an order was issued by the Chairman of the School removing the Petitioner from service with immediate effect. The Petitioner filed CM No. 2530 of 1999 seeking stay of the operation of the order dated 25 th February 1999. He also prayed for a direction to the Respondents to constitute an independent disciplinary committee (DC?) and appoint an impartial IO. In reply it was stated by the Respondents that despite numerous opportunities the Petitioner had failed to participate in the enquiry proceedings. On 26 th October 1998 the IO had submitted his final enquiry report holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges against him. On 2 nd November 1998 a tentative decision on the proposed penalty was taken by the DC and on 3 rd November 1998 a copy of the enquiry report was sent to the Petitioner by registered AD post, under postal certificate (UPC?) and through courier. While the registered AD came back with the postal remark refused?, the cover dispatched UPC was not returned undelivered and the one sent through courier was accepted by the Petitioner?s mother and returned back after reopening and restapling the envelope. It is stated that the statutory approval of the Director of Education (DoE?) was given on 22 nd February 1999. Thereafter the penalty of the Petitioner from service became final and was communicated to the Petitioner by the School by a letter dated 25 th February 1999. No orders were passed by this Court in the above application CM No. 2530 of 1999.

(3.) Meanwhile, the Petitioner filed CM No. 7081 of 2000 stating that the Education Officer ( 'EO?) Zone 14 had by a letter dated 4 th October 1999 conveyed to the School the decision of the DoE, on the representation of the Petitioner at a public hearing, directing reinstatement of the Petitioner with the rider that he should not be assigned any financial responsibility till the finalisation of the enquiry proceedings to be conducted on the internal audit report dated 27 th March 1998. In response thereto on 8 th October 1999 the School informed the DoE that there was no provision under the Delhi School Education Act, 1972 (DSEA?) or the Delhi School Education Rules 1973 (DSER?) permitting withdrawal of the approval granted on 22 nd February 1999. Therefore, the said letter dated 4 th October 1999 could not be implemented by the School. On 17 th January 2000 the DoE wrote to the School reiterating its order dated 4 th October 1999 and requiring the School to forthwith comply with the said order. Pursuant thereto on 3 rd July 2000 the Petitioner wrote to the School stating that he was reporting for duty. However, the Petitioner states that he was not permitted to. Again on 10 th July 2000 he made a request to the Secretary of the DAV Managing Committee (MC?) to direct the Principal to permit him to join duty. In the circumstances, it was prayed that the Respondent should be directed to reinstate the Petitioner. On 16 th August 2000 rule was issued in this petition.