RAMESH CHANDER DUBEY Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks direction for setting aside his suspension order dated 31.07.2003 with further directions to reinstate him with full back wages with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE conspectus of facts relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Principal of Geeta Bal Bharti, Senior Secondary School, Delhi vide appointment letter dated 24.04.1997 and his services on the said post were confirmed w.e.f. 15.05.1998. As per the petitioner, he was faithfully and diligently discharging his duties but still his services were illegally and arbitrarily terminated by the respondent No. 2 vide termination letter dated 31.3.2003. The said order of termination was challenged by the petitioner before the Director of Education and vide orders dated 21.4.2003 the said order of termination was quashed by the Director of Education. Even after the quashing of the said order, the petitioner was not allowed to join his duties, as a result of which the petitioner challenged the termination order by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court. Vide orders dated 22.4.2003 of this Court, the petitioner was directed to make a fresh representation before the Director of Education. Pursuant to the said directions passed by this Court in CW No. 2637/2003, the petitioner made a fresh representation dated 2.6.2003 to the Director Education but since no action was taken by the Office of the Director of Education, the petitioner again approached this Court to seek his redress by filing a fresh writ petition vide CW No. 3807/2003. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the said writ petition was that despite his termination order being quashed by the Director of Education and representations made by him he was not allowed to join his duties. The petitioner also averred that his services were terminated in a most arbitrary and malafide manner without holding any sort of enquiry or without granting any opportunity of hearing to him prior to his termination. The petitioner in the said writ petition prayed that necessary directions be given to the respondents to allow him to join his duties as Principal of Geeta Bal Bharti Senior Secondary School. Vide orders dated 31.07.2003, this Court gave direction to the respondent school to pay the salary of the petitioner from the date of termination till the date of the suspension order. School was also directed to give subsistence allowance to the petitioner as per law during the period of his suspension. Since the said order dated 31.7.2003 has been interpreted by both the counsels to suit the interests of their respective parties, therefore, the same is reproduced as under:

(3.) MR . Jayant Bhushan, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner made a fervent attack on the decision of the respondents to invoke Rule 115 (4) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 against the petitioner. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that Sub -rule (4) of Rule 115 of DSE Rules could not have been invoked by the school against the petitioner as the services of the petitioner were not terminated by the respondent school as a result of imposition of penalty or punishment. It is only in a case where penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from the service, imposed upon an employee, is set aside or rendered void, as a result of decision of a court of law or of the Tribunal and where the disciplinary authority on consideration of the circumstances of the case decides to hold further inquiry against such employee based on the same allegations, then, in such a case an employee can be placed under suspension by the Managing Committee of the school from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly the petitioner was relieved from his duties and responsibilities as a Principal of the school not as a result of imposition of any penalty or punishment but by a non -stigmatic order dated 31.3.2003. The relevant para of termination order dated 31.3.2003 is referred as under: