Parimal Kumar Dutta v. Appejay School & Ors

MANMOHAN, J JULY 05, 2010 js

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + PARIMAL KUMAR DUTTA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Advocate. versus APPEJAY SCHOOL & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN % Date of Decision: 05th July,2010 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes. DIPAK MISRA, CJ Questioning the defensibility of the order dated 20th April, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 2063/2010, the present appeal has been preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. The facts which are requisite to be adumbrated for the purpose of adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant, a teacher in APJ Public School, was proceeded in a disciplinary proceeding on the ground that he had imposed corporal punishment. Be it noted, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated by the Principal of the school and thereafter charges were framed and an enquiry officer was appointed. 3. It is evincible from the factual expose' that during course of enquiry, the Principal was examined as a witness since a confessional letter was submitted by the delinquent teacher before her. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the entire proceeding and as well as the participation of the Principal in the enquiry proceeding. 5. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the Principal being a part of the disciplinary committee, could not have examined herself as a witness and further her participation in the ultimate determination of penalty would cause immense prejudice to the petitioner. It was also contended that the order of suspension has paled into insignificance inasmuch as after the expiration of six months as engrafted under Rule 115(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, no steps have been taken. 6. The stand and stance put forth by the petitioner was combatted by the answering respondent contending, inter alia, that the Principal was required to be examined before the enquiry officer as the confession was made before her; that the doctrine of necessity in a case of this nature would substantially come into play; and further the reliance on Rule 115(2) for the purpose of revocation of the order of suspension has no legs to stand upon. 7. The learned Single Judge referred to the factum of revocation of suspension and after dwelling upon Rule 115, expressed the view as the proviso to sub-rule 2 of Rule 115 has been declared ultra vires in Kathuria Public School vs. Director of Education & Anr., 123 (2005) DLT 89 (DB), the same has no relevance to the case at hand and in any case the said provision does not render any assistance to the petitioner. 8. Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not addressed himself to the issue that the Managing Committee had not extended the continuance of the order of suspension beyond the period of six months and, therefore, the appellant could be automatically reinstated. In this context, we may refer with profit to Rule 115(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973:- "115. Suspension – xxx xxx xx (2) No order for suspension shall remain in force for more than six months unless the managing committee, for reasons to be recorded by it is writing, directs the continuation of the suspension beyond the period of six months." 9. Ordinarily, we would have proceeded to interpret the provision as regards the effect of the provision when the Managing Committee does not direct for the continuance of suspension beyond the period of six months, but, a pregnant one, on a query being made whether such a stand was taken