ABHA PATHAK Vs. GYANDEEP EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Teacher in the Gyandeep Vidya Bhawan (hereinafter ,,the School), Respondent No. 2 herein, challenges an order dated 27th August 1993 passed by the Managing Committee (,,MC) of the School removing her from service. THE Petitioner has also challenged the constitution of the Disciplinary Authority (,,DA), the order dated 15th July 1991 placing the Petitioner under suspension, the memorandum dated 28th October 1991 by which the charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner, the memorandum dated 26th August 1992 requiring the Petitioner to respond to the enquiry report and the memorandum dated 16 th September 1992 giving the Petitioner one more opportunity to make a representation on the report of the enquiry and on the question of proposed penalty of removing her from service.

(2.) ONE of the grounds on which the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 27th August 1993 removing her from service is that there was no prior approval of the Director of Education (,,DoE), Respondent No. 4, in terms of Section 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (,,DSEA) read with Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (,,DSER). On this issue, it was stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the DoE had, by a letter dated 24th January 1994, accorded approval to removal of the Petitioner from service. Consequently, one of the principal submissions of the Petitioner is that the subsequent approval granted by the DoE on 24th January 1994 for removal of the Petitioner would not cure the impugned order dated 27th August 1993 of its illegality.

(3.) MR. Sanjeev Joshi, learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the submissions in the writ petition. He further submitted that the disciplinary action was initiated by mala fide intentions and the MC of the School became vindictive after the Petitioner made complaints to the DDE (Grants) of the MCD against the School; the order dated 15th July 1991 passed by the MC placing the Petitioner under suspension did not have the prior approval of the DoE as required by Section 8 DSEA; it was only after the Petitioners representation against the suspension that it was revoked by the DoE; the DA was not properly constituted under Rule 118 DSER; no nominee of the DoE was present during the deliberations of the DC; no subsistence allowance was paid to the Petitioner and, therefore, she was unable to attend the enquiry proceedings after 7 th March 1993; the failure on the part of the MC to pay the Petitioners subsistence allowance made it impossible for the Petitioner to defend herself in the enquiry; the subsistence allowance was paid much later on 7th May 1993. Lastly, it was submitted that the order dated 27th August 1993 removing the Petitioner from service admittedly did not have the prior approval of the DoE. The approval was granted only on 24th January 1994. This rendered the impugned order dated 27th August 1993 illegal. It was accordingly prayed that the order of removal should be set aside and the Petitioner should be held entitled to reinstatement with back wages and all consequential benefits.