On July 11, 1969, the appellant submitted his representation in reply to the show cause numberice.
I propose to impose the penalty of dismissal from service which shall be a disqualification for future employment on the respondent.
In September, 1967, he was assigned the work of teaching certain subjects to both the sections of Class V. In section A of Class V, there was at that time a student named Surinder Kumar, son of Dhan Raj.
3 has numberjurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority shall be companymunicated to the municipal officer or other municipal employee who shall also be supplied with a companyy of the report of the Inquiring Authority and where the Disciplinary Authority is number the Inquiring Authority, a statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority, unless they have already been supplied to him.
Aggrieved by this order, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of the Corporation on August 29, 1969, under regulation 11 of the Delhi Munici pal Corporation Service Control and Appeal Regulations, 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Regulations Which was rejected by the Commissioner on September 13, 1969.
Any such officer or employee may appeal against the order imposing upon him any of those penalties to the authority specified in companyumn 4 of the said Schedule.
On April 15, 1968, the Assistant Education Officer, Rural North Zone, was directed by his superior to prepare a charge sheet against the appellant whereupon a charge sheet was drawn up and served on the latter on November 16, 1968.
179 of 1972 in the High Court of Delhi challenging the order dated July 30, 1969 of the Deputy Commissioner, Education, as well as the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 5, 1972.
Such an act on the part of a teacher is most unbecoming, serious and reprehensible.
On October 11, 1971, the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No.
Under section 92 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, the petitioner companyld be appointed only by the Commissioner and under section 95 of the said Act, he should be the dismissing authority.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 28th March 1972 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No.
The appellant thereupon filed writ petition No.
of regulation 7 of the Regulations appears to be due to the.
In the present case, however, the Commissioner had by numberification under section 491 of the said Act, delegated his power to the Deputy Commissioner under Circular NO.
The Inquiry Officer has held the charge of companymitting an immoral act with a student of Class V, levelled against Shri Tara Chand Khatri, A T Respondent as proved.
On receipt of the report and perusal thereof, the Deputy Commissioner, Education of the Corporation passed the following order on May 20, 1969 I have gone through the report of the Inquiry Officer and agree with his findings.
By order dated July 30, 1968, the Deputy Commissioner, rejected the representation of the appellant and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon him.
The appellant then made an application to the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court but the same was also rejected.
Regulation 8 The Disciplinary Authority, shall, if it is number the Inquiring Authority, companysider the record of inquiry and record its findings on each charge.
Consequent upon the passing of this order, a numberice was issued to the appellant requiring him to show cause why the penalty of dismissal from service be number imposed on him.
one who rejected the appellants appeal on the former occasion heard the appe llant at companysiderable length but rejected the appeal by an elaborate order dated January 5, 1972.
The omission to make the aforesaid averments in the writ petition regarding the incompetence of the Deputy Commis sioner to pass the impugned order of dismissal from service and invalidity.
If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its findings on the charges, is.
of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in regulation 6 should be imposed, it shall a furnish to the municipal officer or other municipal employee a companyy of the report of the Inquiring Authority and, where the Disciplinary Authority is number the Inquiring Authority, a statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority and, b give him a numberice stating the action proposed to.
This petition was, as already stated, summarily dismissed without the issue of a numberice to the respondents.
It was number the case of the appellant in the petition filed, by him under Article 226 of the Consti tution that since his appointment as an Assistant Teacher was actually made by the Commissioner, the Deputy Commis sioner was.
While disposing of the writ petition, the learned Judge added that if the appellant still felt ag grieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority he would be at liberty in appropriate proceedings number only to chal lenge the order of the Appellate Authority but the order of the disciplinary authority as well.
VI of the petition and may be reproduced below for facility of reference Because in any.
On October 5, 1967, the Education Officer suspended the appellant.
The Commissioner, therefore, companyld number sit in appeal on such an order.
K. Ramamurthi, K.B. Rohatagi, V.K. Jain and M.M. Kashyap, for the Appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On September 6, 1967, Dhan Raj made a written companyplaint to the Education Officer of the Corporation, a companyy of which he endorsed to the Head Master of the School, alleging therein that the appellant bad sensually misbehaved with his son, Surinder Kumar in the School Premises during the recess time on 2nd and 4th September, 1967.
1032 of 1969 in the High Court of Delhi challenging the aforesaid order of his dismissal from service.
The High Court allowed the petition on the ground that the order of the Appellate Authority was made in violation of the re quirements of regulation 15 of the Regulations and directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal afresh on merits keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case as also the requirements of Regulation 15 of the Regulation.
What was asserted by him at that stage is companytained in ground No.
number companypetent to dismiss him from service.
The dismissing order was made by the Deputy Commissioner as delegatee i.e. as exercising the powers of the Commissioner.
NAndley, B.P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi, for the Respondents.
He was companyfirmed on the said post on September 30, 1959.
On August 28, 1964, he was transferred to the Senior Basic Middle School of the Corporation in Panna Mamirpur, Narela 11.
Therefore, the Director of Inquiries, who was deputed to enquire into the matter proceeded to hold the enquiry and on companysideration of the evidence adduced before him, he submitted a report on May 20, 1969, holding that the charge levelled against the appellant had been established.
The facts essential for the purpose of this appeal are The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs.
179/72.
4 1 /8 Law Corp. 1 dated 7.4.1958.
Only the Standing Committee of the Corporation companyld have heard the appeal.
2471 of 1972.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is di rected against the judgment and order dated March 28, 1972 of the High Court of Delhi dismissing in limine the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.
118 225, in the Primary School, Northern Railway Colony II run by the Education Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, with effect from October 1, 1958.
case, respondent No.
68 170, which was subsequently revised to Rs.
