MEEMANSA DIXIT Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The burning question of discussion in this writ petition is whether in a disciplinary inquiry initiated by the above said school, the petitioner is entitled to have assistance of the legal practitioner. The petition was limited to this question only vide order sheet dated 18.9.2006. The gist of the petitioner case is this. She is working as Post Graduate Teacher (English) in J.P.M. Senior Secondary School for Blind, respondent No.2, since 1993. One another inquiry is pending against Ms. Sonia Puri. The petitioner is a defence witness in that case. It is alleged that the management was not interested that the petitioner should depose during inquiry as defence witness. The petitioner received a letter on 21.8.2006. In the said letter, it was mentioned that since the inquiry is being held under the provisions of Rule 120 of 1973 rules, petitioner would not be permitted to have the assistance of legal practitioner during the course of inquiry but no such reference to the rules, which prohibits the assistance of legal practitioner was mentioned. The petitioner sent representations but those did not ring the bell. Ultimately the instant writ was filed.

(2.) A three fold argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. First of all, in the case of Ms. Sonia Puri, against whom disciplinary inquiry was initiated, she was allowed to have assistance of legal practitioner. It is alleged that denial of the same right to the petitioner, who is similarly circumstanced, is mala fide and arbitrary.

(3.) For the following reasons, I clap no value to this contention. Tine inquiry against Ms. Sonia Puri was conducted by Mr. Moksh Mahajan, inquiry officer. The copies of the inquiry report and charges framed against Ms. Sonia Puri have been placed on record. At page 6 of the inquiry proceedings, the inquiry officer, himself made the following remarks: