MANAGING COMMITTEE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against interlocutory order dated 17.5.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge in C.M. No. 7045 of 2011 in C.M. No. 3802 of 2011 in CWP No. 10367 of 2007.

(2.) The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 in the main petition has challenged the minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee, dated 21.6.2007 (P-1). A further prayer for quashing appointment of Enquiry Officer - Hon'ble Ms. Justice Usha Mehra respondent No. 5 has also been made. An interim order was also sought for staying operation of the minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee, which was held on 21.6.2007 (P-1). The writ petition was eventually admitted on 11.9.2007 with a further direction that it be listed on the conclusion of the inquiry against the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 and the parties were given liberty to file application for listing of the case. The Delhi Public School Society and its Managing Committee were permitted to fill up the post of Principal as an interim measure and the same was made subject to final outcome of the writ petition. The aforesaid order was challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the observations made by their Lordships', which have been relied upon by the learned Single Judge reads as under:-

(3.) The aforesaid extract from the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court would show that the High Court is not to be influenced by the inquiry report to be produced before it. The aforesaid observation appears to have been made on account of the reason that the appointment of the Enquiry Officer itself is subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. However, the appellant filed CM Nos. 7045 of 2011 and 3802 of 2011 in CWP No. 10367 of 2007 with a prayer for supply of a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer and for permission to take further action thereon in accordance with law. The aforesaid prayer of the appellant has been rejected by the learned Single Judge holding that the spirit of the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 15.12.2009 would not permit furnishing of copy of the inquiry report to the appellant. It was held by the learned Single Judge that Hon'ble the Supreme Court was clearly of the view that even if inquiry is completed, no adverse order to the petitioner-respondent No. 1 could be passed without the matter being first placed before the High Court. A specific reference has been made to the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court which are to the effect that the High Court is to consider various contentions urged by the petitioner-respondent No. 1 and it is not to be influenced by the contents of the inquiry report. The basic reason appears to be that once the appointment of the Enquiry Officer itself is subject matter of challenge then in the absence of final decision of the writ petition, the inquiry report was not to be acted upon nor the High Court was to be influenced by the findings so recorded by the Enquiry Officer. There are specific observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the High Court should not get influenced in any manner by the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 has been held entitled to challenge the inquiry report or the findings recorded in the inquiry report but it could be done after the question concerning the appointment of the Enquiry Officer is decided finally which is subject matter of challenge in the pending writ petition.