Educational Institutions Should Have Robust System For Preservation Of Records: Delhi High Court Directs KVS To Adopt Digitization

The bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula passed the order while setting aside a cost of Rs 2 Lakh imposed on KVS by a Single Judge for negligence in preservation and non-production of the Annual Confidential Report (ARC) of a teacher who was discharged from his services in a Kendriya Vidyalaya.

The court said that the Single Judge’s observation that KVS as an educational establishment should have better systems for preservation of records, was well-founded. However, it found that the imposition of cost in the case was disproportionate to the circumstances at hand.

“Instead, it would be more equitable to address the need for better record-keeping by directing KVS to adopt better practices such as digitization etc., to ensure the proper preservation of records so that such incidents do not occur in future,” the division bench said.

The respondent, Vijay Rajpal, who was discharged from his services as a Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, had filed a Writ Petition in 2014 before the High Court, seeking relief on the basis of the Annual Confidential Report (ARC) issued with respect to him. It was his case that the ACR of the Principal of the School had been deliberately withheld as the same would have disproved the contents of the Probation report relied upon by the KVS to discharge him.

While upholding the order of discharge, the Single Judge last year said that though there was some documentary evidence on record to show that the ACR did exist, the same was not traceable. The Single Judge opined that KVS being the ultimate managing organization of the Kendriya Vidyalaya in question, there was an issue of governance if such important documents relating to the employees could go missing. It added that being an educational establishment, there was a duty on the organisation to have better systems for preservation of records. The judge had thus imposed a cost of Rs 2 Lakh on KVS due to the negligence in preservation and non-production of the ACR.

In the appeal filed before the Division bench against the imposition of costs, the court noted that the Single Judge had found that no enquiry could be conducted for the purpose of ascertaining if there was an existing ACR or not. It further observed that the Single Judge had categorically held that the committee formed by KVS found that the ACR was not traceable, therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve the committee’s report. However, in spite of the said observations, the Single Judge had imposed a cost of Rs. 2 Lakh on KVS, the court said.

The court further remarked that without fixing any responsibility upon any individual, the Single Judge had held that it is the duty of the organization to have better system for preservation of records.

“In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge has not assigned any cogent reason for imposing the cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the matter. The learned Single Judge, though has imposed cost of Rs. 2,00,000/, but has also observed that the order of discharge does not comment upon the performance of the Petitioner (Respondent No.1 hererin) as held by the Division Bench vide order dated 06.09.2005,” the court said, adding that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there was no occasion for the Single Judge to impose cost.

The court said no Appeal has been preferred by the Rajpal against the order passed by the Single Judge wherein no relief was granted to him. "Therefore keeping in view the totality and circumstances of the case, imposition of cost upon an education institution, without there being any substantial material, is unwarranted," it said, while setting aside the cost imposed upon KVS.

 Case Title: Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. versus Vijay Rajpal & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 631

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. S. Rajappa and Mr. Gowrishankar, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Vijay Rajpal, Respondent No.1 (in-person). Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, Govt. Counsel with Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, Mr. Sachin Singh and Ms. Chaahat Khanna, Advocates for UOI.