DHARAMBIR SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a teacher in respondent no. 2/Dhanpatmal Virmani Senior Secondary School, impugns the order of the respondent no. 1/Director of Education (DOE) dated 5.2.2004 whereby the respondent no. 1/DOE has stopped with immediate effect grant-in-aid for payment of salary to the petitioner. Respondent no. 2/school is an aided school, i.e 95% of the funds for the respondent no. 2/school are provided by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) through respondent no. 1/DOE. Hence, by the impugned order it is this 95% of the grant-in-aid for payment of monetary emoluments of the petitioner have been stopped by the respondent no. 1/DOE. The impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1/DOE reads as under:-

(2.) It is seen that the impugned order has been passed on account of the respondent no. 2/school taking any disciplinary action against the petitioner inspite of the petitioner being convicted in a criminal case. The issue is that whether the respondent No. 1/DOE without examining the nature of the criminal case and the attending circumstances as also other relevant factors can simply because of conviction of the petitioner in a criminal case hold that petitioner will be entitled to payment of salary by grant-in-aid to the extent of 95%.

(3.) The issue in this regard has been recently pronounced upon by a Division Bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 . The ratio of the judgment in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) is that concealment of facts with respect to pendency of a criminal case or conviction in a criminal case would automatically lead to termination of services of an employee or for holding that the entry in the employment was by material concealment of facts. Supreme Court has observed that all relevant aspects are to be considered, including the nature of the case, other attending circumstances such as age of the person concerned, the nature of the job which is offered for employment, etc etc. The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court is contained in paras 38 to 38.11 of the judgment in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and these paras read as under:-