Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Swaran Lata vs Management Committee Dyal Singh Public ... on 17 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037092
CWP-7032-2019
2019 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
233 CWP
CWP-7032-2019
Date of Decision: 17.03.2025
DR. SWARAN LATA ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE DYAL SINGH PUBLIC SCHOOL
AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present:- Mr. Shvetanshu Goel, Advocate with
Ms. Shabnam Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Anshul Labana, Advocate
for respondents no.1, 3 and 4.
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA,
DAHIYA J. (Oral)
The petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment passed by the Educational Tribunal Tribunal, Karnal, dated 01.12.2018,, Annexure P-9,, whereby the petitioner's dismissal from service on account of proven misconduct, misconduct vide order dated 06.07.2011 .2011, Annexure P-5,, has been upheld.
2. Facts of the case in brief are, the petitioner was appointed as PGT Chemistry vide letter of appointment, appointment dated 06.09.1996.. She was chargesheeted on 17.03.2011, on the allegation of misb misbehaviour with studentss of Class XI during the academic session 2010 2010-11, and mentally harassing ing them for not taking private tuition from her.. She had also threatened that they would not be promoted to Class XII.
XII An enquiry nquiry officer fficer was appointed to enquire into the charges, and she was afforded ed due opportunity to present her 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 29-03-2025 04:46:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037092 CWP-7032-2019 2019 -2- version. The enquiry report dated 28.05.2011 28.05.2011, Annexure P-2, concluded as under:
From the evidence discussed above and the enquiries made by me, it has been proved fully that Dr. Swaran Lata had threatened Isha D/o Mrs. Varsha Chaudhary, Navneet S/o Mrs. Sheela Rani, Anubhav Bhankar S/o Ishwar Singh Bhankar and Gautam Saini S/o Sh. Ravinder Saini students of 11th class non-Medical Medical group of session 2010-11 2010 from very beginning of the session to take private tuition promoted to 12th tu tion from her otherwise they will not promo class. Dr. Swaran Lata Lata had compelled Anu Jo Joon D/o o Surender Singh Joon and Karan S/o Mrs. Bharti for tak taking ing tuitions from her and had also a so demanded and accepted Rs.
Rs.5000/- from m Anu Joon and Rs. 2000/-
2000/ from Karan aran as tuition fee. Dr. Swaran Lata had also demanded Rs. 10,000/-
10,000/ as tuition fee from Anmol Singh Virk but on his failure to pay her this huge amount amount, she he demanded Rs. 5000/-
5000/ which also the said student could not afford and pay to her. Thus, the charge is full proved. 2.1. Based upon that, that a show cause notice was issued to her, dated 08.06.2011,, Annexure P-3, P , which was duly replied to vide letter dated 23.06.2011,, Annexure P-4.
P . Considering her reply as well as findings of the enquiry officer, fficer, the School Chairman passed the impugned order of dismissal from service under Rule 27(ii)(c) of Dyal Singh Public School Employees (Services, Recruitment, Recruitment, Conduct and Discipline) Rules, 2000 (for short, 'the School Rules').
Rules') 2.2. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Educational Tribunal, which was decided vide judgment dated 28.03.2014 28.03.2014, Annexure P-7,, whereby the dismissal order dated 06.07.2011 was set aside, giving liberty to the School's Management to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The judgment was 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 29-03-2025 04:46:21 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037092 CWP-7032-2019 2019 -3- challenged by the Management before this Court by filing CWP-8573-2014 2014 titled Dyal Singh College Trust Society and Managing Committee, Dyal Singh Public School v.. Educational Tribunal for Educational Institutions at Karnal and others, which was disposed of vide order dated 06.05.2014,, with the following observations:
Heard the arguments of learn learned ed counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned order, Un Un-Amended Amended Rules of 2003 as well as Amended Rules of 2007.
Learned ed counsel for the petitioner has very fairly admitted that this fact was not brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that it was in the notice of the Appellate Authority while passing the impugned judgment as nothing has been mentioned either in some document or in the written statement that the Appellate Authority was having the knowledge about substitution of earlier Rules.
Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as substituted Rules, it appears that the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the amended Rules of 2007.
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority i.e respondent No.1 to take into consideration the Rules of 2007 and pass necessary order after hearing both the parties.
par 2.3. In view thereof, thereof the issue whether approval of the Committee under the Haryana School Education (Amendment) Rules, 2007(for short, 'Rules of 2007') 2007 was a condition precedent for imposing major punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner, was reconsidered by the Tribunal leading to passing of the impugned judgment judgment, dated 01.12.2018,, dismissing her appeal.
3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 29-03-2025 04:46:21 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037092 CWP-7032-2019 2019 -4-
3. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly contended that the order of dismissal is per se illegal as Chairman of the Managing Committee had no authority to pass this order.. In terms of the School chool Rules, Principal is the competent authority uthority to take disciplinary action against an employee, employee and not the Chairman. Secondly Secondly,, it has been contended that the School chool is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). Accordingly, the CBSE Affiliation Bye Bye-laws will be applicable,, and the petitioner's conduct needs to be regulated in terms there therewith. Bye-law law 47 prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalty, and also stipulates that no order imposing such a penalty shall be passed by the disciplinary authority except after approval of the committee. Since the disciplinary action against the petitioner oner has been taken without approval of such a committee, it is unsustainable. The Bye-laws laws have a force of law law; in this regard he has placed reliance upon Bye-law Bye 19(2),, which is to the following effect effect, "The The Society/Trust/Company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 will ensure that the school is running as per the provisions of the Education Act and other relevant Acts of Centre/State Governments affiliation norms of CBSE and shall be committed to provide quality education to the children en and for this shall take necessary steps as per its needs.
needs." In support of the contention, he has referred to Jigya Yadav v.. Central Board of Secondary Education and others, others (2021) 7 SCC 535. Thirdly Thirdly, it has been contended that Rule 162 of the Rules of 2007 requires that 'every every managing committee of recognized school running under self-finance self finance scheme shall frame rules and regulations of their employees in relation to service conditions conditions, constitution of disciplinary committee, committee etc.' Since the School Rules are of the year 2000, the same cannot be considered to have been framed in terms of the subsequently y 4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 29-03-2025 04:46:21 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037092 CWP-7032-2019 2019 -5- notified Rules of 2007, 2007 and resultantly the enquiry proceedings conducted under the former Rules are illegal.
4. Learned senior counsel for respondents no.1, 3 and 44,, on the contrary, contends that the impugned judgment is well reasoned and has been passed after considering every argument raised by the petitioner petitioner/appellant /appellant therein.
herein. He further furthe contends that Bye-law law 24 of the CBSE Affiliation Bye-- laws clearly stipulate that each affiliated school shall frame its own Rules for the employees, employees which would be as per Education Act of the State/UT concerned; the Bye-law Bye reads as under:
1. Each school affiliated/to be affiliated with the Board shall frame Service Rules for its employees which will be as per Education Act of the State/U.T.,, if the Act makes adoption of the same obligatory, otherwise as per Service Rules given in subsequent sections.
He has further been contended that the objection taken by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding competence of the Chairman to pass the order of dismissal is also wrong,, since the School Rules were amended by the Management in its meeting dated 21.03.2002 and disciplinary powers against the staff were vested with Chairman of the Management Committee. The amended Rule reads as under;
under (A) Powers and Functions of Chairman ooff the School Managing Committee:
Committee:-
(ii) to (vii) xxx xxx xxx (vii Disciplinary Powers:- He shall exercise powers to take
(viii) disciplinary action against staff as per Dyal Sing Singh Public School employees Discipline Rules.
Rules 5 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 29-03-2025 04:46:21 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037092 CWP-7032-2019 2019 -6-
5. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered.
6. The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding competence of the Chairman to pass the order of dismissal is without substance, since the Bye-laws Bye laws stand am amended ended by a subsequent amendment carried out on 21.03.2002, vesting the Chairman with the power to take disciplinary action against the employees.
7. Secondly the argument concerning mandatory application of Secondly, CBSE Bye-laws laws to regulate the disciplinary matter matters, is misconceived. It has been raised on the basis of Bye-law 19(2), that 'the School Society will ensure that the school is running as per the provisions of the Education Act and other relevant Acts of Centre/State Governments affiliation norms of CBSE...' ...' The stipulation evidently is that the School is to be run as per provisions of the Central or the State Acts, as the case may be, as also the norms laid down by the affiliating bodies.
bodies Further, Bye-law 24 clearly provides provides, "Each Each school affiliated/to be affiliated with the Board shall frame Service Rules for its employees which will be as per Education Act of the State/U State/U.T.,, if the Act makes adoption of the same obligatory, otherwise as per Service Rules given in subsequent sections."
sections There is no disp dispute that the Haryana School Education Act, Act 1995 and the Rules of 2007 framed thereunder make it mandatory for the private educational bodies, like the respondent Management,, to frame service rules for its employees and the School Rules 2000 have been so framed. Therefore, there is no basis to contend that CBSE Bye-laws laws will apply to the petitioner's case.
8. Lastly, the argument that the School Rules framed by the Management cannot be termed valid in the light of requirements of Rule 162 6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 29-03-2025 04:46:21 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037092 CWP-7032-2019 2019 -7- of the Rules of 2007, 2007 was raised before the Tribunal also, and already stands rejected after due consideration with the following observations:
21. To my mind, there is no merit in the contentions. The requirement of supplying copies of rules and regulations framed by the school is at the stage of moving an application for recognition. As discussed above, the respondent respondent-school school was already recognized before the Rules of 2003 came into being. No doubt that by virtue of sub-Section sub Section 6 of Section 4 of tthe he Act 1995 such school had to obtain 'No No Objection Certificate Certificate' from the Government so as to be deemed to have been recognized under the Act. However, there was no condition either in the statute or rules that they were under obligation to supply rules an andd regulations framed by them to the department at that stage. Therefore, the rules framed by the school hold the ground.
22. The fact remains that the respondent school already had its own rules known as Dyal Singh Public School Employees (Service Recruitment, (Service, tment, Conduct and Discipline) Rules, 2000 even before the Education Rules, 2003 were framed. The School Rules were applicable till 2003 when the same were eclipsed by Education Rules 2003. However, the shadow was removed in 2007 when Rules 163 to 185 of tthe he Education Rules 2003 were omitted. Therefore, the School Rules became free from infirm infirmity.
y.
Needless to say that the doctrine of eclipse can be invoked in such cases where law/rules were valid when the same were enacted/framed but shadow was cast by supe supervening rvening event, namely, inconsistency with statute/Rule which came into existence subsequently. This is precisely what happened in this case. It is reiterated that when the respondent respondent-school school framed Rules in 2000, there were no Rules of 2003. Therefore, the Rules framed by the school were valid. However, shadow was cast by Rules of 2003 which came into being subsequently. The Rules framed by the school were rendered dormant. However, after the amendment of the Rules of 2003, the shadow was removed.
7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 29-03-2025 04:46:21 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037092 CWP-7032-2019 2019 -8- Therefore, rules framed by the school became free and came back to life.
This Court finds no valid reason to differ with the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal. The order of dismissal against the petitioner has been passed in line with the provisions of the School Rules, and it has not been disputed that due procedure has been followed before taking disciplinary actio action.. She was afforded due opportunity of hearing and the order is based upon due consideration of relevant facts of the case, including the response to tthe he show cause notice as well as findings of the enquiry officer.
9. Further, the t judgment in Jigya Yadav case, holding that the CBSE Examin nation Bye-laws operate as law and must be regarded as such for all legal purposes, purposes has no application to the facts of this case. The issue beforee this Court wass correction/modification of nam me recorded in marksheets issued d by the CBSE E, and validity of the Bye-law w restricting the scope of such h corrections. Th he observations by the Court w were made in this context which h did not concern n conditions of service of emplooyees of a school affiliated to thee CBSE. Besidees, in the instant case, the Maanagement has framed its own n School Rules in line with the statutory manddate of the Act of 1995 which h regulate serviice conditions and disciplinarry matters of the employees.. Accordingly, reliance r upon the judgment is misconceived misconceived.
10. In view the discussion, there is no merit in the petition and it stands dismissed.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)) JUDGE 17.03.2025 Ad Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 8 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 29-03-2025 04:46:21 :::