RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJENDRA Singh joined D.C. Arya Senior Secondary School, Lodhi Road, (in short the school(tm)) on August 20, 1964 as Grade -II teacher for teaching drawing subject. In the course of his employment he also completed his post -graduation in Sociology. On February 07, 1990 a charge sheet was served on him pursuant to which he was compulsorily retired from service under Rule 117 (b)(ii) of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (in short DSER(tm)). After charge sheet was served a writ petition was filed by Rajendra Singh being W.P.(C) No. 1679/1990 which was dismissed being premature. Pursuant to the penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed vide order dated March 09, 1994 Rajendra Singh preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2869/1994 which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated September 05, 2011. Hence the present appeal.

(2.) INITIALLY Shri R.G. Gupta was appointed as Inquiry Officer who after some time expressed his inability to continue and thus Mrs.K.Upadhyaya was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Rajendra Singh did not participate in the inquiry proceedings and thus the Inquiry Officer held him guilty of each article of charge. The nine articles of charge against Rajendra Singh were:

(3.) THE learned Single Judge vide the impugned order noted that though when departmental committee met on December 23, 1993 the teacher representative was not present however, vide a separate letter dated December 24, 1993 the staff representative gave approval to the decision of the departmental committee and imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement. As regards the issue that no notice was served on Rajendra Singh qua the inquiry proceedings the learned Single Judge noted the entire sequence of events showing that Rajendra Singh shifted his residence and even when on the shifted residence notices of inquiry proceedings were sought to be served he refused to accept the same. Again fresh notice was issued by the Inquiry Officer on December 10, 1992 which was also refused to be accepted. Thus the documents on record showed that every attempt was made to serve Rajendra Singh with the notice of hearing of the inquiry however, he avoided it. No illegality was found in the change of the Inquiry Officer. The learned Single Judge also noted that though it was correct that some of the articles of charge related to the year 1968 however, many were of the year 1982 as well and it cannot be held that the findings, on the articles, were based on no evidence. The Court found no harassment on account of the earlier writ petition filed by Rajendra Singh. The learned Single Judge also noted that there was due approval not only by the Directorate of Education but also from Ministry of Education before punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed.