SATYADIN MAURYA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition impugns Rule 120(1)(d)(ii) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 as ultra vires to the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner was an employee of respondent No. 3 Air Force Bal Bharti School. He was on 28th May, 2009 charged with, inspite of being married, having an illicit relationship with another married woman. An inquiry was held against the petitioner. As per the report of the Inquiry Officer, the charge stood proved against the petitioner. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the record of the inquiry proceedings formed an opinion that a major penalty of removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment in any other recognized private school be imposed on the petitioner and served notice dated 13th January, 2011 under Rule 120(1)(d)(ii) of the Rules giving 15 days? time to the petitioner to represent against the same. The petitioner submitted his reply; however that did not find favour with the Disciplinary Authority which vide order dated 27.01.2011 imposed the punishment as proposed.

(3.) Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 provides remedy of appeal to the Delhi School Tribunal against such an order. However, instead of preferring the statutory appeal, present writ petition is filed and the vires of the aforesaid Rule is also challenged. Rule 120 reads as under: