Bishan Gupta vs Usha Kiran Verma and Others

A.K. Sikri Acting Chief Justice

CM Nos.12147/2012, 12151/2012, 12153/2012, 12155/2012, 12168/2012, 12170/2012, 12172/2012, 12149/2012

Allowed, subject just exceptions.

CMs stand disposed of.

All these eight appeals arise out of common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 06.7.2012 whereby eight writ petitions filed by

the appellant herein have been dismissed. All the eight private respondents in these appeals were the teachers in Shakti Mndir Prem Wati Public

School (hereinafter referred to as ''school''). Separate charge-sheets were served upon them alleging misconduct on the basis of which orders in

respect of each of these teachers were passed on different dates imposing major penalty of dismissal from service. The teachers filed appeals

challenging the validity of imposition of penalty, before the Delhi School Tribunal (''the Tribunal'' for brevity). These appeals were taken up together

and were decided by the Tribunal vide common judgment dated 11.5.2012. The learned Tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the penalty

holding the same to be illegal and bad in law. The Tribunal accordingly directed reinstatement of all the teachers with 50% backwages and

consequential benefits with full salary with effect from 11.5.2005 and also interest @ 12% per annum on arrears of backwages. The Tribunal

directed that the orders be complied with, within a period of one month. The appellant did not accept the said judgment of the Tribunal. Instead of

complying with thereof, the appellant filed writ petitions in this Court. It is these writ petitions which are dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide

common judgment dated 06.7.2012.

Before us, submission of the Learned Counsel for the appellant was very limited, viz., even if when the Tribunal found that the inquiry was not

conducted properly and due procedure was not followed, instead of directing reinstatement, the Tribunal should have given an opportunity to the

school to hold fresh inquiry. His submission was that even the learned Single Judge did not accept this plea which is contrary to the law laid down

by the Supreme Court. He specifically cited the judgment in the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Y.S. Sadhu, Ex-Inspector, wherein the Supreme

Court followed the view taking note of earlier judgments. In that case, the Supreme Court held that when the infirmities were found in the

disciplinary proceedings, the Court should have directed fresh proceeding from the stage of alleged illegality.

This argument may appear to be attractive in the first blush. However, when we go little deeper into the matter, we find that the disciplinary

action taken against the teachers was a result of mala fide and was clearly vindictive. Therefore, the plea of holding fresh inquiry would be totally

unjustified. To demonstrate this, we take note of the some relevant facts.

As pointed out above, private respondents were working as teachers with the school. They were working as such on different posts such as

TGT, Assistant Teacher, Music Teacher, Physical Education Teacher, etc. They had rendered service of more than a decade. Their grievance was

that they were not given full salary for the post on which they had been working. Lesser salaries were paid to them in cash and signatures were

taken from them on full salary register. For the month of May, 2007 to July, 2007 when none of the teachers received their salaries and legitimate

dues for the last three months, they approached the school authorities and demanded full salaries and that too by way of cheques. On raising such

a demand, all those teachers who asked for salaries were told to leave the school premises and were locked out of the school from 17.7.2007 to

25.7.2007. All the teachers used to go to school every day during this period and used to write the representations to Director of Education.

Though the said period was a lock out resorted to by the school authorities, but later on it was alleged as strike by school authorities. The said lock

out continued till 25.7.2007. However, the said lock out ended with the intervention of parents of the children but teachers were not paid salaries.

Feeling aggrieved by the same, these teachers approached this Court by way of Writ Petition (C) Nos.5725/2007, 7104/2007 and 1174/2008

titled as Abha Gupta Vs. Lt. Governor and Ors, Meena Sharma Vs. Lt. Governor and Ors. and Sonica Jaggi Vs. Lt. Governor and Ors. wherein

they sought their remedy by invoking Section 10 and Section 20 of the Delhi School Education Act. Apprehending their dismissals, the teachers

also sought injunction on the same. On directions of this Court, the salaries of the teachers were released yet management withheld the same for

the period from 17.7.2007 to 25.7.2007. That writ petition is still pending.

According to the teachers, the outburst of filing the petition was that the school authorities started creating adverse working conditions for the

teachers and out of such utter harassment at the hands of school authorities, the petitioners of the said two petitions moved two applications under

Rule 192 of the Delhi School Education Rules explaining their grievances which the teachers were facing after filing of the petitions. The said

applications are pending disposal with the main writ. In the said application, the teachers raised various allegations against the harassments being

done by school authorities, particularly, by Manager and Principal, such as giving of false memo''s, humiliating teachers in front of students by

Principal, showing illegally the children of another unrecognized school as the children of this school and asking teachers to prepare their results,

talking false complaint from small children against teachers, asking teachers to give leave application on medical ground in advance, etc. even prior

to falling sick. All the teachers further filed application seeking directions from the Court against the school authorities for payment of their

Dearness Allowance and increments. Thereafter, the school authorities started removing the teachers one by one from services and as on

02.5.2009, all the teachers who approached this Court seeking their full salaries were terminated.

Strangely, only these teachers who had approached the Court were targeted and on one pretext or the other, charge-sheets were served. In

two cases, i.e., of Ms. Abha Gupta and Mrs. Meena Sharma, no charge-sheet was provided and yet the nominee of the DOE allowed the

termination of the two teachers without a charge-sheet. Mrs. Meena Sharma was terminated during the period of her extended maternity leave in

an ex parte proceedings. In the case of remaining five teachers, i.e., Sonica Jaggi, Sonia Sharma, Urmil Saxena, Usha Kiran and Sushma Verma,

the Manager issued the charge-sheets and not the Disciplinary Committee and sought replies and without considering the said replies. In the same

charge sheet itself asked them to appear before the alleged Disciplinary Committee showing pre-determined approach and biased mind of the

school authorities as Rule 120 specifically says that the response is first to be considered by the Disciplinary Committee and if found satisfactory,

the Disciplinary Committee can absolve the individual from charges.

The abovementioned five teachers were dismissed from the services on the same day at the same time and in one go. In case of Meenakshi

Tewari, the allege charges were of the vintage 2005-06, yet management did not choose to take any action against her till December, 2008. Qua

other charges in all the cases, the charge of alleged absence from duty from 17.7.2007 to 25.7.2007 was common for which the school authorities

had already deducted the pay as well as stopped the increment and yet again included the same along with other charges and treating the same as

charge for major penalty.

So much so, even the charges in respect of five teachers were verbatim the same. Apart from the charges of absence from duty, the two charges

were as to why teachers wrote letter to Commissioner of Police and why the teachers demanded the election of teacher representatives on

management committee.

We may mention that the appellant has even admitted the violation of Rule 20 in all these appeals. The facts disclosed above make out the case

of mala fide and biased attitude as well. It would also be pertinent to mention that the school has not come forward to challenge the order of the

Tribunal. Instead, the Manager in his personal capacity filed the writ petitions and then the present appeals. This also reflects on the maintainability

of the appeals itself. For all these reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders. These appeals are accordingly dismissed.