DEEPIKA SABHARWAL Vs. SANATAN DHARM SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the petitioner praying that the order passed by the Inquiry Officer on 27th September, 2006 be stayed. By that order, the Inquiry Officer, who is arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the petition, has rejected the petitioner"s reply to his notice dated 18th September, 2006 directing the petitioner to appear with her defence statement along with documents. In the said notice, it was also stated that in the absence of written statement, the Inquiry Officer shall submit his findings to the Disciplinary authority who may take stern action her. By the impugned communication dated 27th September, 2006, the Inquiry Officer has stated that the reply submitted by the petitioner, is vague and not acceptable to the undersigned""" And that, "the other issues raised by her"". . is not related to the inquiry. " It also states, "the language used by her in reply to the notice shows her intention and shows that testimonials submitted by her are fake, which has been established by the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police. " It then goes on to state that, "the matter is closed finally and it is for her information. " In her petition, the petitioner has also impugned the aforesaid notice dated 18th September, 2006 placing the petitioner under suspension and directing her to appear before the inquiry Officer on 27th September, 2006.

(2.) ON 9th October, 2006, this Court had also heard some preliminary arguments with regard to stay and passed the following order :-

(3.) THE following relevant facts have emerged. The petitioner was appointed on 9th December, 1997 as a Teacher in the Sanatan Dharm Senior secondary School, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi. She was selected by the Selection Committee as PGT (Hindi) w. e. f. 01. 07. 1999. Admittedly, there is serious conflict between the current Managing Committee of the respondents and the petitioner"s father who the respondents allege had grabbed the powers of manager of the Managing Committee of the School, and that a number of complaints came to be instituted against the petitioner"s father in this regard. Whilst they state that the petitioner came to be selected as a Teacher, "due to coercion exerted by the father of the petitioner who was managing the affairs of the school at the relevant time. " ; it is also admitted that even now there is litigation between the School Managing Committee and the petitioner"s father. There, her father has alleged that the present Managing Committee of the respondent school has no locus standi, that it is illegally constituted, and has taken over the school without authority of law. While the respondents have taken the position that the petitioner came to be appointed without submitting the original certificates due to her father"s influence", the petitioner states that the current Managing Committee is determined to dismiss her with a view to settling scores with her father. It has also emerged that on 3rd October, 2002, after her father was ousted, and the current Managing Committee assumed control of the affairs of the school, an FIR came to be lodged against the petitioner under Sections 120 (b), 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC on a report, said to have been made by an informer, that forged certificates have been submitted by the petitioner with a view to obtaining her employment with the school. As a result of this, the petitioner was arrested on 26th November, 2002 and remained in jail till 4th December, 2002, when she was enlarged on bail. Significantly, the petitioner was permitted to rejoin her duties on 5th December, 2002 and continued in her job till 10th April, 2003, when she was placed under suspension. It appears that the precursor to her suspension was a legal notice sent by the petitioner on 5th February, 2003 demanding her salary and allowances which were not being paid from October, 2002.