Disposed

Bala Pritam Guru Harkishan International Public School v. Director of Education and Ors.

Delhi HC13 Mar 2018W.P.(C)/2292/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a petition challenging a refusal to approve the termination of a school employee. The Judge directed the Director of Education to spell out reasons for denying approval within four weeks and notify the petitioner within a week, ensuring remedies are available.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner to be informed of the reasons for denial within four weeks and the Director to intimate the petitioner within a week thereafter.

Bala Pritam Guru Harkishan International Public School… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Order: March 13, 2018

¶3

W.P.(C) 2292/2018 & CM 9501/2018

¶4

BALA PRITAM GURU HARKISHAN INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Mukesh Kher and Mr. Priyank Kher, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Mr. N.K. Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶9

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶10

Denial of approval by respondent-Director of Education to terminate service of third respondent is under challenge in this petition by petitioner-School. Impugned order of 28^th September, 2017 (Annexure P- 1) is to the effect that the approval to major penalty of termination of service inflicted upon third respondent is not accorded by respondentDirector of Education as the charges levelled against third respondent do not hold ground and are devoid of merit. Impugned order was conveyed to petitioner on 6^th November, 2017.

¶11

To assail impugned order, learned counsel for petitioner draws attention of this Court to the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

W.P.(C) 2292/2018

¶14

of 19^th April, 2016 (Annexure P-9) to submit that a full-fledged inquiry was conducted against third respondent and on the basis of evidence led, it was concluded that the misconduct of third respondent deserves major penalty of termination of service and the major penalty was approved by the Disciplinary Committee, which comprised of Director’s nominee as well. It is submitted that impugned order does not disclose as to on what basis, it is said that the charges levelled against the said officer do not hold any ground.

¶15

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order (Annexure P-1) , Disciplinary Committee’s Report (Annexure P-9) and the material on record, I find that before impugned order (Annexure P-1) is given effect to, the reasons for arriving at the conclusion as indicated in the impugned order are required to be spelt out by Director of Education, within a period of four weeks and its intimation is required to be given to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law against the impugned order.

¶16

With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of.

¶17

Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

MARCH 13, 2018

Page 2 of 2

W.P.(C) 2292/2018

Bala Pritam Guru Harkishan International Public School v. Director of Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bala Pritam Guru Harkishan International Public School v. Director of Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bsc C&C Jv Vs Union of India, & Ors.

Jug Lal Sharma Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Parivartan Foundation Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Kuldeep Singh and Anr. Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Ataullah Khan Vs Satyawati College and Ors.

National Investor Forum Regd. Vs Golden Forests India Ltd.

Asha Devi and Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Canara Bank Vs the National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Anr.

Kalyan Singh Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Puneet Sharma & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ravi Garg & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Satyendra Kumar Vs Maharaja Agarsain Public School & Anr.

Dr. Vineet Kumar and Ors. Vs Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology and Anr.

Ataullah Khan Vs Satyawati College and Ors.