KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. MANAGEMENT OF DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 25.9.1990, issued by respondent No. 1, to the petitioner, stopping the monthly salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 10.9.1990, as also the order dated 13.2.1992, issued by respondent No. 3/ Delhi School Tribunal, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner filed under Section 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The brief facts relevant for deciding the present case are that the petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 1 school as a bus Driver w.e.f. 01.12.1983, for a period of six months in terms of the letter of appointment dated 01.12.1983. On completion of services of one year, vide letter dated 19.12.1984, the petitioner was appointed on probation for further period of six months w.e.f. 01.12.1984. It is stated by the petitioner that he continued in service till the year 1990, when he was served with a copy of the circular dated 25.9.1990, issued by the Principal of respondent No. 1, addressed to the Accounts Department of the school, directing the Department to stop the monthly salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 10.9.1990 onwards, till further orders.

(3.) The petitioner claims in the writ petition that as he was not served with any notice to show cause or any letter discontinuing his service, the action of respondent No. I/school was illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. Against the aforesaid action of the respondent No. 1/ school, the petitioner made a representation dated 4.6.1991 to the respondent No. 2, Directorate of Education, seeking directions against the respondent No. 1/ school to reinstate him in service w.e.f 10.9.1990 and pay him full back wages with continuity in service. The aforesaid representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 15.11.1991, wherein it was indicated that his services were terminated on the ground of concealment from the management of the fact that at the time of his appointment, a criminal case was pending against him and that he had failed to submit a conduct certificate to the Management of the school issued by two responsible persons, which was a prerequisite for regular appointment.