A writ petition challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated against a teacher for misrepresentation of qualifications. The court examined the composition of the school's meeting under Rule 118 and dismissed the petition.
The writ petition was dismissed with no costs awarded; merits to be decided in the disciplinary proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
% 5th December, 2016
MRS. PAWAN JASHIAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Nikilesh R. Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Advocate.
versus
KHALSA MIDDLE SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Ms. Swaty Singh Malik, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 7.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
of India by the petitioner, and who is a teacher in the respondent no.1/school, impugning the show cause notice dated 14.3.2016 by which it is proposed that disciplinary proceedings be taken against the petitioner for having obtained her employment with the respondent no.1/school by fraud
because petitioner had represented that she had a diploma in Yoga and Naturopathy from the Gujarat Ayurved University, but, on verification from
Page 1 of 8
W.P. (C) No.2854/2016
Gujarat Ayurved University, it was found that the name of the petitioner was not found to be enrolled for the course of diploma in Yoga and Naturopathy run by the Bapu Nature Cure Hospital & Yogashram, Gandhi Nidhi, Patparganj, New Delhi recognized by the Gujarat Ayurved University.
Page 2 of 8
W.P. (C) No.2854/2016
to as below:-
“ Rule 118. Disciplinary authorities in respect of employees.- The disciplinary committee in respect of every recognized private school, whether aided or not, shall consist of-
(iii) a nominee of the Director, in the case of an aided school, or a nominee of the appropriate authority, in the case of an unaided school;
(iv) the head of the school, except where the disciplinary proceeding is against him and where the disciplinary proceeding is against the Head of the school, the Head of any other school, nominated by the Director;
(v) a teacher who is a member of the managing committee of the school, nominated by the Chairman of such managing committee.”
the Rules have been complied with or not, let me reproduce the minutes of the meeting of the managing committee dated 12.3.2016 of the respondent no.1/school and these minutes of the meeting of the managing committee read as under:-
“The meeting of the managing committee of Khalsa Middle School, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi-110023, held on 12-03-2016 at 12.30 PM under the Presidentship of S. Sucha Singh in the school. The members who have signed against their name are present.
| 1. | S. Sucha Singh (President) |
sd/- |
|---|---|---|
| 2. | S. Pritpal Singh(V. President) | |
| 3. | S. Jaspal Singh (Manager) |
sd/- |
| 4. | S. Balvinder Singh (Asstt. Manager) | sd/- |
Page 3 of 8
W.P. (C) No.2854/2016
| 5. | S. Charanjit Singh (Accountant) | sd/- |
|---|---|---|
| 6. | Smt. Jasbir Kaur (Member) | sd/- |
| 7. | S. Manjit Singh (Member) | |
| 8. | S. S.P. Singh (Headmaster) | sd/- |
| 9. | Principal S.K.V. No.1 (Ad. Board Nominee) | |
| 10. | Smt. Sumanjit Kaur (Staff Representative) |
sd/- |
| 11. | Smt. Sukhjeevan Kaur (Staff Representative) | sd/- |
| 12. | S. Hukam Singh (Parent Member) | |
| 13. | Principal GGSSS No.3 (D.E‟s Nominee) | |
| 14. | Vice Principal G.B.S.S. No.3(D.E‟s Nominee ) |
sd/- |
| J.S Dhama- | ||
| 15. | Vice Principal G.B.S.S. No.4 (Adv. B. Nominee) | sd/- |
| Dr. Hitender Yadav. |
Minutes of the Last meeting held on 26-12-2015 are confirmed unanimously. It was decided that in the previous meeting S. Jaspal Singh should obtain the copy of letter written by the Education Department, Govt of NCT of Delhi to Gujarat Ayurvedic University for verification of Diploma and mark sheet submitted by Mrs. Pawan Jashial (Yoga teacher) at the time of her appointment and also obtain a copy of letter received by the Education Department from Gujarat Ayurvedic University, which were mentioned by the Deputy Education Officer Zone (19), South West (A), in her letter dated 05/19-12-2015 because in the absence of the Letters dated 05/19-12-2005 the Letter is incomplete. Accordingly S. Jaspal Singh (Manager) written a letter dated 31-12-2005 to Deputy Education Officer to send copies of the aforesaid Letter along with enclosure.
The Deputy Director sent the copies of both the above letters vide F.No.2.19/DDE (SW) A 2016/08 dated 2/5-1-2016. S. Jaspal Singh placed both the above Letter before the Managing Committee.
The Managing Committee unanimous resolved and authorized S. Jaspal Singh (Manager) to issue a charge sheet to Mrs. Pawan Jashial (Yoga teacher) for submitting a false Diploma in Naturopathy and false mark sheet on which it is written Recognized by Gujarat Ayurvedic University. But on verification from the above said University verified that Mrs. Pawan Jashial was not enrolled for the course of Diploma in Yoga and Naturopathy by Baput Nature
Page 4 of 8
W.P. (C) No.2854/2016
Cure Hospital And Yogashram Gandhi Nidhi, Patparganj Delhi-91 recognized by Gujarat Ayurvedic University for the said year.
The Managing Committee further authorized the Manager S. Jaspal Singh to appoint Shri B.S. Kapoor as enquiry officer to conduct enquiry on above charges against Mrs. Pawan Jashial (Yoga Teacher).
The Managing Committee also authorized S. Jaspal Singh Manager to award punishment if enquiry officer in his enquiry report found that the charges are proved or otherwise as per the findings of enquiry officer.
After thanks to the Chairman
The meeting disbursed.”
Sd/(underlining added)
the managing committee of the respondent no.1/school shows that the said meeting comprised of Chairman of the school, the Manager of the school, nominee of the Director of Education and the staff representatives of the school and which are the relevant four requirements of the Rule 118 of the Rules and hence it cannot be argued that Rule 118 is not complied with. At serial no.1 of the meeting dated 12.3.2016 is S. Sucha Singh, the President and Chairman of the respondent no.1/school. At serial no.3 is S. Jaspal Singh who is the Manager of the school. The nominee of the Director is Sh. J.S. Dhama who is at serial no.14 of the list of persons and the staff representatives are found at serial nos.10 and 11 of the minutes of the meeting dated 12.3.2016. All these persons are signatories to the minutes of meetings dated 12.3.2016. Therefore, the minutes of the meeting dated
Page 5 of 8
W.P. (C) No.2854/2016
12.3.2016 show that all persons who ought to be part of the disciplinary committee under Rule 118 of the Rules were very much part of the meeting/resolution dated 12.3.2016 and who authorized taking of disciplinary action against the petitioner and for the Manager of the school to issue the show cause notice dated 14.3.2016.
contend and argue that Rule 118 of the Rules has been violated, because, it is found that in fact the minutes of the meeting dated 12.3.2016 show that the meeting/committee comprised of persons who are to be the members of the disciplinary committee as per Rule 118 of the Rules.
argued that disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be faulted with because of the violation of Rule 118 of the Rules. Obviously, a
Page 6 of 8
W.P. (C) No.2854/2016
larger and higher body will have all the powers of a smaller body which is constituted, and which is all the more so when the larger and higher body is found to have the necessary members who are to be comprised in the smaller body being the disciplinary committee as per Rule 118 of the Rules.
Page 7 of 8
W.P. (C) No.2854/2016
stage that the aforesaid last contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is only on convenient reading of the counter affidavit of the respondent no.4
because respondent no.4 in the same counter affidavit in para 6 of the preliminary submission has mentioned the fact that the respondent no. 4 had issued direction to the respondent no.2/Manager of the school in terms of respondent no.4‟s letter dated 19.12.2015 to initiate action against the petitioner because petitioner was found to have taken the employment by perpetuating fraud and by giving a false certificate. Also, in the counter affidavit of the respondent no.4 it has stated as per the paragraphs in reply to the grounds that even if the managing committee does not have the requisite powers, this technical objection should not allow the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner to fail because of the petitioner in fact being guilty of perpetuating fraud upon the school by filing a false certificate of qualification.
the same is therefore dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. All aspects of merits will be decided in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, in accordance with law.
DECEMBER 05, 2016 Ne
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Page 8 of 8
W.P. (C) No.2854/2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the school managing committee violated Rule 118 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 due to lack of a properly constituted disciplinary committee
Whether the managing committee can initiate disciplinary proceedings when it includes the requisite members required for a disciplinary committee under Rule 118.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mrs. Pawan Jashial
Khalsa Middle School & Ors.
Valmik
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
