Dismissed¶40

Dr.Ram Naresh v. V.S. Agriculture Senior Secondary School through Its Manager , Management Committee & Ors.

Delhi HC22 May 2026W.P.(C)/7315/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed; disciplinary proceedings against Vice Principal; challenge to enquiry report 05.03.2023, communication 01.04.2026, chargesheet 13.03.2020; Article 226; interlocutory stage; no civil consequences from enquiry report; mala fides not established; delay not ground to quash chargesheet; promotion to Principal; LPA No. 107/2026 Division Bench directions preserved; W.P.(C) 16807/2025; Directorate of Education; Delhi High Court; Sanjeev Narula J; Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28; Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (2012) 11 SCC 565.

What did the court decide?

The enquiry report dated 05.03.2023 is only a step in aid of the disciplinary process and does not, by itself, visit the Petitioner with any civil consequences. ¶10

Dr.Ram Naresh Vs V.S. Agriculture Senior Secondary… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the enquiry report dated 05.03.2023, the communication dated 01.04.2026, and the chargesheet dated 13.03.2020 warrants interference under Article 226 at the current interlocutory stage of the disciplinary proceedings. +2 more

¶11

Court's answer

The enquiry report dated 05.03.2023 is only a step in aid of the disciplinary process and does not, by itself, visit the Petitioner with any civil consequences.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Interference at this stage would amount to pre-empting the statutory process and denuding the disciplinary authority of its jurisdiction; writ jurisdiction is not intended to short-circuit ongoing disciplinary proceedings where the delinquent employee has an effective opportunity to place his defence and no irreversible prejudice has been caused.

¶31

Key takeaways

Ordinarily the Court does not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to interdict disciplinary proceedings at the stage of issuance of a charge-sheet, show-cause notice, or enquiry report, unless the same is shown to be wholly without jurisdiction or vitiated by patent illegality.ratio¶11
Allegations of mala fides against an institutional decision-making process must be pleaded with specificity and supported by cogent material of a compelling nature; they cannot rest on inference or conjecture drawn from the mere pendency or multiplicity of proceedings.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Sanjeev Narula, J.) dismissed a writ petition by a Vice Principal challenging (i) an enquiry report dated 05.03.2023 of the Disciplinary Action Committee, (ii) a communication dated 01.04.2026 calling for his response to that report, and (iii) a chargesheet dated 13.03.2020. Held: an enquiry report is merely a step in aid of the disciplinary process and causes no civil consequences by itself; Article 226 jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised to interdict disciplinary proceedings at the charge-sheet/show-cause notice/enquiry-report stage unless they are wholly without jurisdiction or vitiated by patent illegality; allegations of mala fides must be pleaded with specificity and cogent material, and a pattern of successive proceedings gives rise at best to suspicion, not malice in fact or law; and mere delay, without demonstrated prejudice, is not by itself a ground to quash a chargesheet. The Court clarified that dismissal shall not prejudice the Petitioner's right to be considered for promotion in terms of the Division Bench directions of 12.03.2026 in LPA No. 107/2026. Relied on Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28 and Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565.

¶1

$~34

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 7315/2026 & CM APPLs. 35717-35718/2026

¶4

DR.RAM NARESH .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, Mr. Sarvesh Singh, Mr. Siddharth Krishna Dwivedi and Mr. Deepak Chand, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

V.S. AGRICULTURE SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL THROUGH ITS MANAGER , MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC, GNCTD with Mr. N. K. Singh, Mr. Nishant Rewalia and Ms. Aliza Alam, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R % 22.05.2026

¶11

This writ petition lays challenge to (i) the enquiry report dated 05^th March, 2023 submitted by the Disciplinary Action Committee pursuant to the chargesheet memorandum dated 14^th December, 2021; (ii) the communication dated 01^st April 2026 calling upon the Petitioner to submit his response to the said enquiry report; and (iii) the chargesheet memorandum dated 13^th March 2020, which is assailed primarily on the ground of inordinate delay and lack of finality in the proceedings arising therefrom.

¶12

W.P.(C) 7315/2026 Page 1 of 5

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/05/2026 at 11:57:34

¶15

The Petitioner alleges that the actions of the Management Committee of the Respondent School are actuated by mala fides and form part of a sustained course of harassment through successive charge memorandums and disciplinary proceedings, with the ulterior object of denying him fair consideration for promotion to the post of Principal.

¶16

The relevant facts, in brief, are that the Petitioner was appointed as a Post-Graduate Teacher in 1997 and was promoted as Vice Principal in 2010. Two charge memorandums dated 01^st October, 2018 and 24^th December, 2018 were issued to him. According to the Petitioner, the issues forming the subject matter of those memorandums stood resolved upon deposit of a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- with certain charitable societies allegedly connected with the school management.

¶17

Subsequently, a chargesheet dated 13^th March, 2020 was issued in relation to reimbursement claims pertaining to the medical treatment of the Petitioner’s wife. Thereafter, another chargesheet memorandum dated 14^th December, 2021 came to be issued concerning reimbursement of expenses allegedly incurred towards COVID-19 treatment.

¶18

Aggrieved, the Petitioner submitted a complaint before the Directorate of Education.¹ An enquiry conducted pursuant thereto culminated in a report dated 25^th April, 2022, wherein, inter alia , it was observed that “ there is something wrong going on in the school as a whole .” The Petitioner thereafter submitted further representations highlighting the alleged pattern of repeated charge memorandums and withholding of salary. It is stated that the DoE recommended, inter alia , withdrawal of the chargesheet dated 14^th December, 2021. Notwithstanding such observations,

¶19

W.P.(C) 7315/2026 Page 2 of 5

¶20

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/05/2026 at 11:57:34

¶21

the disciplinary proceedings were continued by the Respondent School.

¶22

It is further contended that, following the retirement of the erstwhile Principal, the Respondent School appointed teachers junior to the Petitioner as Head of School in the years 2022 and 2025, allegedly overlooking the Petitioner’s claim based on seniority and eligibility.

¶23

The Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) 16807/2025 seeking appointment to the post of Principal. The said petition was dismissed on 23^rd January, 2026. However, in LPA No. 107/2026, the Division Bench, by order dated 12^th March, 2026, set aside the said decision and directed the Respondent School to initiate the process for promotion to the post of Principal by considering the candidature of the Petitioner along with other eligible candidates.

¶24

In the backdrop of the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, the present petition has been filed. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the issuance of the impugned communication dated 01^st April, 2026 and the continuation of disciplinary proceedings are part of a concerted effort to frustrate the Petitioner’s claim for promotion.

¶25

Having considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record, this Court is of the view that no case for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out at this stage.

¶26

At the outset, it is material to note that the enquiry report dated 05^th March, 2023 is only a step in aid of the disciplinary process and does not, by itself, visit the Petitioner with any civil consequences. The impugned communication dated 01^st April, 2026 is, in essence, a notice granting the

¶27

1 “DoE”

¶28

W.P.(C) 7315/2026 Page 3 of 5

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/05/2026 at 11:57:34

¶31

Petitioner an opportunity to respond to the findings recorded in the enquiry report before any final decision is taken. The disciplinary authority has yet to apply its independent mind to the enquiry report and the Petitioner’s defence. Interference at this stage would amount to pre-empting the statutory process and denuding the disciplinary authority of its jurisdiction to consider the matter in accordance with law. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction is not intended to short-circuit ongoing disciplinary proceedings, particularly when the delinquent employee has an effective opportunity to place his defence and no irreversible prejudice has yet been caused.

¶32

It is well settled that ordinarily the Court does not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interdict disciplinary proceedings at the stage of issuance of a charge-sheet, show-cause notice, or enquiry report, unless the same is shown to be wholly without jurisdiction or vitiated by patent illegality.² 12. The principal contention of the Petitioner that the disciplinary proceedings are actuated by mala fides and are intended to thwart his consideration for promotion cannot be accepted at this stage. Allegations of mala fides , particularly when directed against an institutional decisionmaking process, must be pleaded with specificity and supported by cogent material of a compelling nature; they cannot rest on inference or conjecture drawn from the mere pendency or multiplicity of proceedings. The sequence of events relied upon by the Petitioner, including the issuance of successive charge memorandums and the timing of the impugned actions, may, at best, give rise to a suspicion, but falls short of establishing malice in fact or in law

¶33

2 Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28; Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565

¶34

W.P.(C) 7315/2026 Page 4 of 5

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/05/2026 at 11:57:34

¶37

so as to vitiate the proceedings at the threshold. Whether the charges are sustainable, or whether the proceedings have been conducted in a manner causing prejudice, are matters which fall squarely within the domain of the disciplinary authority and are amenable to challenge, if necessary, upon culmination of the process. At this interlocutory stage, in the absence of clear evidence of abuse of power or colourable exercise of jurisdiction, this Court finds no justification to interdict the proceedings.

¶38

Insofar as the challenge to the chargesheet dated 13^th March, 2020 on the ground of delay is concerned, this Court is not persuaded to interdict the proceedings at the threshold. Mere delay, in the absence of demonstrated prejudice or circumstances indicating abuse of process, cannot by itself be a ground to quash a chargesheet. The issue of prejudice, if any, would necessarily depend on the manner in which the proceedings unfold and can be urged before the disciplinary authority.

¶39

As regards the order dated 12^th March, 2026 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 107/2026, it is clarified that dismissal of the present petition shall not prejudice the Petitioner’s right to be considered for promotion in terms of the directions contained therein. In the event of any alleged non-compliance, it shall be open to the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

¶40

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶41

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶42

MAY 22, 2026/ hc

¶43

W.P.(C) 7315/2026 Page 5 of 5

¶44

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Writ petition challenges (i) the enquiry report dated 05.03.2023 submitted by the Disciplinary Action Committee pursuant to the chargesheet memorandum dated 14.12.2021; (ii) the communication dated 01.04.2026 calling upon the Petitioner to respond to the enquiry report; and (iii) the chargesheet memorandum dated 13.03.2020, assailed primarily on the ground of inordinate delay and lack of finality.¶11
Disciplinary Action Committee of the Respondent School (administrative/disciplinary process) · 01st April 2026
Prior proceeding
Petitioner appointed as Post-Graduate Teacher in 1997 and promoted as Vice Principal in 2010.¶16
Prior proceeding
Two charge memorandums dated 01.10.2018 and 24.12.2018 were issued to the Petitioner.¶16
Prior proceeding
Per the Petitioner, the issues in the 2018 memorandums stood resolved upon deposit of Rs. 2,60,000/- with charitable societies allegedly connected with the school management.¶16
Prior proceeding
Chargesheet dated 13.03.2020 issued regarding reimbursement claims for medical treatment of the Petitioner's wife.¶17
Prior proceeding
Chargesheet memorandum dated 14.12.2021 issued concerning reimbursement of expenses allegedly incurred towards COVID-19 treatment.¶17
Prior proceeding
Complaint filed before the Directorate of Education; ensuing enquiry culminated in a report dated 25.04.2022.¶18
Prior proceeding
The DoE enquiry report of 25.04.2022 observed that something was wrong in the school as a whole.¶18
Prior proceeding
It is stated that the DoE recommended withdrawal of the chargesheet dated 14.12.2021, among other things.¶18
Prior proceeding
Notwithstanding the DoE observations/recommendation, the disciplinary proceedings were continued by the Respondent School.¶21
Prior proceeding
After retirement of the erstwhile Principal, teachers junior to the Petitioner were appointed as Head of School in 2022 and 2025, allegedly overlooking his seniority and eligibility.¶22
Prior proceeding
Earlier petition W.P.(C) 16807/2025 seeking appointment to the post of Principal was dismissed on 23.01.2026.¶23
Prior proceeding
In LPA No. 107/2026, the Division Bench, by order dated 12.03.2026, set aside the said decision and directed the Respondent School to initiate the promotion process for the post of Principal considering the Petitioner along with other eligible candidates.¶23

Dr.Ram Naresh v. V.S. Agriculture Senior Secondary School through Its Manager , Management Committee & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Ram Naresh v. V.S. Agriculture Senior Secondary School through Its Manager , Management Committee & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Islamuddin Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary & Ors.

Ambrish Kumar Patel Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ashwani Kumar Pandey Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ashrit Talwar Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Bhuthalingam Hariharan Vs Bureau of Immigration

Sh. Mannish Garg Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Smt Arati Ray Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Ms. Aarti Mathur & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mohd. Aftab Alam Vs the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Anr.

Seema & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sunil Arora Vs Secretary Derc and Ors.

Sunita Reddy Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University

Smt. Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs the Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Trison Buildcon LLP through Its Authorized Signatory Mukesh Verma Vs G N C T of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariate & Ors.