'School Authorities Bypassed Statutory Procedure': Delhi HC Vindicates Rusticated Probationer In Cheating Case, Orders ₹15 Lakh Compensation

Tribunal's Order

The Tribunal noted that the second proviso to Rule 105(1) provides that no termination from the service of an employee on probation shall be made by a school other than a minority school, except with the previous approval of the Director. However, the same had not been followed.

Further, the School authorities had applied for ex post facto approval from the Director, 8 years after the dismissal. The Tribunal deemed this as untenable in law as such was not provided for in the scheme of the DSE Act/Rules. Thus, the approval by the Director, in this case, was considered irrelevant.

The remainder ground of the Tribunal's Order was that the School did not investigate the allegation of serious Misconduct. Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered for reinstatement of the probationer with back wages as determined by the school management. However, the Tribunal granted liberty to the School to proceed against the Appellant for alleged Misconduct.

This Order was challenged by the School before the Delhi High Court.

Rights of a Probationer

The Delhi High Court, following several Supreme Court precedents on Rule 105 of the DSE Act/Rules, and service jurisprudence, upheld the Order of the Tribunal on the illegality of dismissal order.

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Raj Kumar vs. Director of Education and Ors., (2016) 6 SCC 541, the Delhi High Court brought out the intent of the legislature for framing the DSE laws. The same was to bring the running of educational institutions in line with the conditions of employment. The Court made reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the DSE Act for safeguarding tenure of school employees. Accordingly, safeguards were enforced to prevent unfair treatment of employees. This includes arbitrary and unfair termination of service.

On the aspect of the inquiry, the Court distinguished between "termination simpliciter" and "punitive termination." The former relates to termination due to unsatisfactory performance. In contrast, the latter assumes stigmatic connotations, as serious allegations are cited for dismissal. In the latter case, the Supreme Court jurisprudence is rife with the Schools' duty to inquire in deference to the Statutes and the Principles of Natural Justice. The principle 'Audi alteram partem' would mandate the School to assure adequate notice, fair hearing, and no bias. The Petitioner School's defense of not holding inquiry due to getting no-response from Show Cause Notices/Memos was held to be unacceptable.

Misconduct of School

The Court examined arguments of the School authorities framing criminal imputations on the Respondent. The motive of presenting forged documents against the Respondent to further its Chairman's animosity against the probationer was found plausible.

The Chairman was alleged to be acrimonious to the Respondent because of the latter's marriage with the former's niece. The allegations found substance as the Court found no response to the averment of the Respondent that he had submitted genuine documents to the Petitioner, different from the ones produced by the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner did not show any evidence that it had examined the purported forged documents.

The Court observed that the Petitioner had subjected the Respondent to a criminal trial following an FIR on charges of cheating/forgery. However, the Trial Court had acquitted the Respondent while not ruling out the possibility of of false implication of the Respondent.

The Court noted in detail that the School had subjected the Respondent to the stigma of dismissal without inquiry, a criminal case without a sufficient cause, and multiple appeals in civil litigation, for 26 years. In light of this, the Court vindicated the Respondent's innocence while modifying the Tribunal's ruling on three counts:

First, the issue of reinstatement not being a rule of thumb according to jurisprudence was impractical in the instant case, given the 26 years of passage from the Order of dismissal.

Secondly, the liberty to the Petitioner to proceed with an inquiry was set aside as it would be unfair to subject the Respondent to another protracted litigation. The mental agony suffered by prolonged litigation at the behest of the Petitioner deserved compensation.

Thirdly, compensating the Respondent's sufferings, the Court modified the Tribunal's Order on back-wages by awarding Rs. 5 lakhs in lieu of the same and reinstatement. Further, the Court directed the Petitioner to compensate the Respondent Rs. 10 lakhs towards subjecting the Petitioner to traumatic litigation within 4 weeks subject to 8% per annum interest after that if not paid.

Case Details

Case Tile: Chairman, Arya Girls Senior Secondary School v. Director and Ors.

Citation: W.P.(C) 6257/2011 & CM Appl. Nos.12599/2011, 36872/2019 & 1238/2020

Coram: Justice Jyothi Singh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 53

Click Here To Read/ Download Order