KATHURIA PUBLIC SCHOOL Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition raises an important issue about the effect of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in TMA Pat Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., : AIR2003SC355 on the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') and Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules').

(2.) THE factual matrix in the present case is limited. The respondent No. 2 was a Post Graduate Teacher with the petitioner school and was appointed as a Vice -Principal for a period of one year vide an order dated 4.3.2002 but allegedly on account of unsatisfactory performance was reverted bade However, that is not the issue which arises in the present petition since subsequently disciplinary proceedings were started against respondent No. 2 on the ground that the respondent No. 2 had failed to follow the code of conduct for teacher as contained in the said Act and the Rules, specially Rule 113 which prohibits a teacher to engage herself in any business. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the ground that respondent No. 2 had engaged herself in private business of metal wends ceramic guide etc. under the name and style of M/s Fundamental Anchors. Respondent No. 2 was alleged to have obtained even the Sales Tax Registration number in her name and was the proprietor of the business. The stand of respondent No. 2 was that it was her husband who was carrying on the business under her name for auspicious reasons but this stand was not accepted on account of the fact that respondent No. 2 was the sole proprietor of the business; the business was not titled under her name but under the name and style of M/s. Fundamental Anchors; respondent No. 2 had not shown that she was not enjoying the income there from or not showing that as part of her return.

(3.) THE case of respondent No. 2 was referred by the petitioner to the Directorate of Education for approval of the imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service but the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 30.9.2003 in the following terms: