APEEJAY SCHOOL Vs. VED PRAKASH LAKHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside the impugned order dated 18.01.2017 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal in Appeal No.07/2014.

(2.) Case of the respondent is that he had joined the service of Respondent School as TGT (Physics) on 06.08.1984. He was confirmed w.e.f 01.07.1990 vide confirmation letter dated 01.07.1990 issued by the then Chairman of the petitioners school. Since the day of appointment till his removal from the service, respondent no.1 had put in 26 years of service with an unblemished and impeachable record. The said respondent being M.Sc. in Physics (PGT), was assigned to teach senior classes 11th and 12th from the academic session 1988-1989. Although the respondent no.1 was assigned to teach senior classes but he was not given the PGT grade. Respondent no.1 represented on 19.11.1990 and 28.04.1992 for giving him PGT pay-scale to the management of school but the management of the petitioner School withdrew the respondent no.1 from the senior classes in spite of serving for four years, without any reason. The said respondent raised the issue of denial of promotion to him in the meeting held in September, 2008 in which representative of Directorate of Education was also present.

(3.) Further case of the respondent no.1 is that the management of petitioner's School had not implemented the recommendations of the 6th pay commission even though the petitioner School was charging enhanced fees from the students. In the staff meeting held on 29.06.2009, the respondent no.1 raised this issue which accelerated the vindictive actions of the petitioner and started laying trap to implicate the respondent no.1 in a false case of sexual harassment but could not succeed. Thereafter, the principal of school, Sh. A.P Sharma and Head Mistress Neeta Mansuka under a conspiracy to victimise the respondent no.1 by hook or crook, started instigating the students to create disturbance in his class and use derogatory language against him so as to create an opportunity to frame the respondent no.1 in case of beating of students. On 10.11.2010, respondent no.1 was taking 7th period in his Class VIII-B and some 10-12 boys were missing from the class. They came after 15-20 minutes. On inquiry, they told respondent no.1 that they had been called by MW-2, Ms.Mansuka, Head Mistress. Respondent no.1 asked them to bring a chit from Ms.Mansuka that they were called by her, thereafter, he would allow them to enter the class. They returned after sometime without any chit. Respondent no.1 asked them to stand outside in the Verandah. While other students stood outside, 3 of them including Prateek Sharma of respondent no.1 class and Ankit Kumar student of another class VIII-A, which is adjacent and who had been punished by teacher of his French class to stand outside kept on entering the class, and used derogatory and abusive language against respondent no.1. After the period was over, respondent no.1 asked 3 students of his class as well as Ankit Kumar to come to Principal's office. However, Ankit Kumar ran away. Respondent no.1 took the other three students to the principal. When respondent no.1 and 3 boys were in the Principal's office, Ms. Hansuka came with Ankit Kumar inside the Principal's office putting her hands around his shoulders tutoring him something. She complained that respondent no.1 had caught hold of Ankit's neck so hard due to which his nail mark was caused on his neck. Respondent no.1 explained that Ankit had run away from the class and the allegation that respondent no.1 had caught him by neck causing nail mark is false. Moreover, there was no nail mark on Ankit's neck. The petitioner school contacted the guardians (MW-4 & MW-5) of the two boys viz. Ankit Kumar and Prateek Sharma respectively on 10/11.11.2010 and concocted a case of respondent no.1 beating Ankit Kumar on 11.11.2010 and Prateek Sharma on 12.11.2010 for which undated complaints were obtained from the 2 students and from their parents. In execution of the plan, a call was made to respondent no.1 from the Principal's office at about 4.15 P.M. on 11.11.2010, Ankit's father (MW-4) came with a complaint that respondent no.1 had beaten his son.