/ * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + WP (C) No.6143/2010 % Decided on : 10'" September, 2010 jVIAHARAJAAGRASEN jVIODERN SCHOOL .... Petitioner Through: Mr. M.L. Khattar, Advocate versus SUMAN ABB! & ANR Respondents Through: jvir. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with jVlr. Bijoy Laxmi Dass, Advocate for R-1. |V|s. Vandana Shukia, Proxy Counsel for jvis. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for R-2. Coram: HON-BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? MANMOHAN SINGH. I. (Oral) Caveat No.193/2010 In view of learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 put in appearance, the caveat stands disposed of. WP (C) No.6143/2010 & CM No.12113/2010 (Stay) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India to quash the judgment/order dated 13.08.2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 was working as a librarian in Maharaja Agrasen Model School. Vide letter dated 28.06.2003 respondent No. 1 was removed from the service of the school by the disciplinary authority of the WP.ic)No.6143/201() / of3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified ! I school on imposition of penalty under Clause 3 of Rule 117 (b) of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules 1973. A chargesheet dated 10.07.2000 along with the statement of allegation was issued against the respondent No. 1 that formed the basis of departmental inquiry. 3. According to the petitioner as per the procedure the disciplinary committee was formed consisting of the manager of the school, a norninee of the appropriate authority, the Vice Principal of the school and a teacher who is a member of the managing committee nominated by the chairman. Approval of the competent authority was taken and then as per the letter dated 02.02.2001 issued by respondent No. 2 an officer from the education department was taken in the disciplinary committee. The said disciplinary committee after giving an opportunity to the respondent No. 1 to make presentation against the proposed action on major penalty " held an inquiry. 4. The inquiry officer Mr. Anil Sehgal conducted the inquiry and submitted its report on 07.01.2002. The disciplinary committee after considering the record of the inquiry concluded that major penalty be imposed, therefore, a show cause notice along with the inquiry report was issued to the respondent No. 1 and she was asked to make her representation against the proposed action of punishment. 5. The respondent No. 1 by letter dated 30.03.2002 responded to the said show cause notice and after considering the same the disciplinary committee decided to impose the penalty and communicated the decision to the competent authority. Vide WP (c) No.6143/2010 Page 2 of 3 letter dated 26.06.2003 the Director of Education approved the penalty of removal from service. Vide letter dated 28.06.2003 the respondent No.l was relieved from the service of the school w. e. f. for the same day. 6. The respondent being aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal to the Delhi School Tribunal and the Presiding Officer Delhi School Tribunal setting aside the order of the disciplinary authority allowed the appeal and reinstate the respondent No. 1 with 50% back wages. 7. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The statement on behalf of the respondent No. 1 is also made at the bar. The respondent No. 1 has been reinstated in the service. I have gone through the order passed by the Delhi School Tribunal very carefully. The detailed discussion about the charges raised against the respondent no. 1 have been comprehensively discussed in para 10 to para 13 and I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment/order appears to be reasonable and legal and in accordance with law and no interference in the impugned judgment/order is called for. 8. The writ petition is dismissed. MANMOHAN SINGH, J. September 10, 2010 rs WP (c) No.6143/2010 Page 3 of 3