G. Vallikumari vs Andhra Education Society & Ors

2. Respondent No.1 is a registered society formed with the primary object of imparting education to the children belonging to Andhra community living in Delhi. Respondent No.2 is a private linguistic minority school established by respondent No.1 and is aided by the Government of Delhi to the extent of 95%. The appellant was appointed as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 w.e.f. 25.1.1988. Her appointment was approved by the Director of Education, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the Director'). In January, 1992, the appellant was granted permission by the management for doing Postgraduate Diploma in Human Resources Development Programme. After some time, the appellant applied for study leave for attending the training programme and also for preparing for the examination. She reported for duty after three days of the expiry of leave period, but the management of respondent No.2 refused to accept her joining and initiated an inquiry against her on the charges of neglecting duties as UDC, availing leave without prior permission, absence from duty, misplacing the office records, failure to submit important office records/registers to the superiors and flouting the directions given by the management of the school. Shri Y.S. Rao, who was appointed as inquiry officer, submitted report dated 4.7.1995 with the findings that all the charges except charge No.4 have been proved against the appellant. A copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the appellant along with notice dated 9.11.1995 proposing her removal from service. She filed reply dated 20.11.1995. After considering the same, the disciplinary committee recommended the appellant's removal from service. The Managing Committee accepted the same and sent letter dated 24.1.1996 to the Director seeking his approval in terms of Rule 120(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (for short, `the Rules'). The latter declined to approve the proposal. This was conveyed to the management vide letter dated 4.11.1996. Thereupon, the Managing Committee informed the Directorate of Education that its request for approval of the decision to remove the appellant may be treated as withdrawn. As a follow up, the Chairman of the Managing Committee passed order dated 30.11.1996 removing the appellant from service.

13. We shall now deal with the question whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in setting aside the direction given by the Tribunal for reinstatement of the appellant with consequential benefits. Shri Y. S. Rao, who conducted inquiry against the appellant submitted report dated 4.7.1999 with the findings that all the charges except charge No.4 have been proved against the appellant. She was given a copy of the inquiry report along with show cause notice to which she filed reply dated 20.11.1995. In his order, the Chairman of the Managing Committee did refer to the allegations leveled against the appellant and representation submitted by her in the light of the findings recorded by the inquiry officer but without even adverting to the contents of her representation and giving a semblance of indication of application of mind in the context of Rule 120(1)(iv) of the Rules, he directed her removal from service. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the order of punishment was passed by the Chairman without complying with the mandate of the relevant statutory rule and the principles of natural justice. The requirement of recording reasons by every quasi judicial or even an administrative authority entrusted with the task of passing an order adversely affecting an individual and communication thereof to the affected person is one of the recognized facets of the rules of natural justice and violation thereof has the effect of vitiating the order passed by the concerned authority.

(emphasis supplied)

17. In view of the above noted judgments, we feel that ends of justice will be met by substituting the punishment of removal from service imposed on the appellant with the penalty of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect and directing that she shall be paid only 20% of back wages during the intervening period.

18. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The punishment of removal from service imposed on the appellant is substituted with the penalty of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect. We also direct that instead of full back wages, the appellant shall be entitled to 20% of the salary and allowances for the period between the dates of removal from service and this order. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to reinstate the appellant without delay. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

(G.S. Singhvi) .........................J. (Dr. B.S. Chauhan) New Delhi, February 02, 2010.