YASHODA SHARMA Vs. P.K. SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed that contempt proceedings be initiated against the respondents for deliberate and intentional violation of the order dated 3.10.2012 passed in the Writ Petition No.6288/2012. By an order of 26.9.2012 passed by the Director (Education) under Section 20 of the Delhi School Education Act, the school was taken over for a period of three years. The aforesaid order was challenged by the management by filing a Writ Petition No.6288/2012. While staying the order of the Director of Education the following conditions were imposed on the management:

(2.) AS per the present contempt petition, the petitioner has been working as the Vice-Principal of the School with effect from 2.3.2009; she was appointed to the said post on ad-hoc basis as per the decision of the Managing Committee of the school. On 9.7.2012 when the petitioner returned for her duties to the school after the summer break, she was not allowed to enter the school. She reported the matter to the Directorate of Education as well as to the Police. The petitioner was served with a letter of suspension on 10.7.2012. The petitioner was also informed that show cause notices dated 28.6.2012 and 3.7.2012 had been issued to her and the Managing Committee had decided to suspend her till a detailed enquiry was completed. Petitioner was also informed that her entering in the school had been banned to facilitate the smooth enquiry proceedings.

(3.) IT is also the case of the petitioner that she continued to attend her duties from 28.9.2012 till 3.10.2012. The petitioner has also stated in the contempt petition that on the intervening days between 28.9.2012 and 3.10.2012 the petitioner was stopped from entering the school by security guards Mr.S.R. Upadhyay, Mr.Hari Lal and his wife Ms.Rita. The petitioner submitted representations and complaints to the Directorate of Education and to the Police station on 29.9.2012. She also prepared a note which had been witnessed by other members of the staff to show that she was prevented from entering the school and discharging her duties on 3.10.2012 also. The petitioner has also relied upon a report dated 1.10.2012 submitted by the examination department to her to show her presence on 1.10.2012. It is stated that on 4.10.2012 the petitioner was again prevented from entering the school, upon which petitioner made representations.