CENTRAL ACADEMY Vs. SECRETARY DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is an unaided privately managed recognized senior secondary school. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 are teachers in the subjects of Mathematics, Physics and Biology respectively. On 26.12.1994, a suit was filed by the plaintiffs claiming a decree that the plaintiffs' act in suspending defendants 3, 4 and 5 through letter dated 30.11.1994 be declared to be deemed to have been approved by the Director of Education and will remain in force till the disciplinary proceedings, contemplated in the show cause notice dated 30.11.1994 are concluded. Decree for injunction has also been prayed against defendants 1 and 2 not to proceed further with the letter dated 6.12.1994 and against defendants 3, 4 and 5 restraining them from entering school premises and causing any interference in the affairs of the school.

(2.) Suit is founded on the allegations that due to gross misconduct, inefficient, incompetent, non co-operative, rude conduct and defamatory work of defendants 3. 4 and 5, the Managing Committee of the School decided that they be removed from their respective services, in accordance with the principles of law. As the continuance of defendants 3, 4 and 5 was likely to cause indiscipline and nuisance in day-to-day functioning of the School, accordingly on 30.11.1994, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), a resolution was passed by the Managing Committee to suspend with immediate effect defendants 3, 4 and 5. Simultaneously, Manager of the School was directed to take necessary action to probe into the charges of misconduct etc. for which show cause notice was also served on defendants 3, 4 and 5. Pending inquiry, defendants 3. 4 and 5 were asked not to enter the School premises without prior permission of the Principle. The said defendants refused to receive the suspension letter and started making demonstrations and resorted to stage dharnas, holding meetings, causing loss and damage to the School property and further started creating interference in day-to-day's functioning of the School. This necessitated in the plaintiffs filing a suit against the said defendants for permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of Shri P .K. Bhasin, Additional District Judge, Delhi, who on 5.12.1994 by way of an ad-interim order of injunction restrained them from holding any demonstration or Dharna within a distance of 100 metres from the boundary of the School. It is alleged that cause of action arose to the plaintiffs to file the instant suit for claiming the aforementioned reliefs when on 14.12.1994 a letter dated 6.12.1994 was received from the Director of Education calling upon the plaintiffs to furnish various information. It is alleged that Director of Education did not decline to accord approval to the Managing Committee's resolution before the expiry of the statutory period of 15 day and since no decision had been taken by the Director of Education within the stutatory period declining to grant the approval, the same would be deemed to have accorded and, thus, there was no necessity to famish the requisite details called for in the letter dated 6.12.1994. Moreover the details as sought for were not necessary since, according to the plaintiffs,the Director of Education while taking decision to accord approval to the decision of the Managing Committee is only concerned to see whether such a decision of the Managing Committee to suspend a teacher is not malafide and arbitrary. Relevant material had already been submitted by the plaintiffs to the Director of Education, who had not, within the requisite period taken any decision, therefore, approval would be deemed to have been accorded. According to the plaintiffs, despite order of injunction passed by the Court of Shri P.K. Bhasin, Additional District Judge, defendants 3, 4 and 5 were collecting tuition fees from students under the receipt of Parents Teacher's Association (for short 'PTA'), were not allowing the Management and the Accountant to collect tuition fees, due to which Management was not in a position to disburse salaries to teachers and non-teaching staff. Defendants 3,4 and 5 had also locked the principal's room, did not permit the Management to conduct half-yearly examinations. Defendants 3,4 and 5 had been roaming in the School premises and were threatening the teachers and non-teaching staff that whoever would disobey their word, would have to face dire consequences. Thus, according to the plaintiffs, defendants 3, 4 and 5 were not allowing the Management to run the School at all. In this background the aforementioned reliefs were claimed.

(3.) Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. On 3.1.1995 an exparte order of injunction was passed restraining defendants 3, 4 and 5 from entering the School premises and were also restrained from collecting any tuition fees from students or creating any hindrance in day-to-day's functioning of the School.