Removal Of Employee From Private Unaided School Without Prior DOE Approval Invalid: Delhi High Court Reinstates Teacher Dismissed In 2007

Consequently, the Court reinstated a teacher who had been removed from service in 2007 and granted her continuity of service along with 50% back wages.

The Court was hearing intra-court appeals filed by a teacher challenging the dismissal of her writ petition and the rejection of her challenge to disciplinary proceedings that culminated in her removal from service by Saai Memorial Girls School in March 2007.

The teacher contended, inter alia, that the removal order had been passed without obtaining prior approval of the Directorate of Education as required under Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.

A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, while tracing the precedential history concerning Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, observed: "One of us (C. Hari Shankar, J), sitting singly, took stock of the above precedential history, and, following Raj Kumar and Marwari Balika Vidyalaya, held, in Meena Oberoi-I, that an order of removal of an employee of a private unaided school could not be passed without the prior approval of the Directorate of Education as required by Section 8(2) of the DSE Act."

Advocate Aditya Singla appeared for the appellant. Advocate Palak Rohmetra appeared for the respondents.

Background

The appellant was serving as an Assistant Teacher with Saai Memorial Girls School. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her through a charge sheet dated 16 October 2006, alleging inefficiency in teaching, misbehaviour with colleagues and refusal to attend a parent-teacher meeting.

Following an inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found several charges proved, and a show cause notice proposing removal from service was issued to the appellant. Thereafter, by order dated 29 March 2007, the School communicated the decision to remove her from service.

The appellant challenged the removal before the Delhi School Tribunal, which dismissed her appeal on 31 July 2009. Her writ petition challenging the Tribunal's decision was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 6 February 2017. Aggrieved thereby, she preferred the present appeals before the Division Bench.

Before the Division Bench, the appellant contended that the order of removal was illegal as it had been passed without obtaining prior approval of the Directorate of Education under Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. The School relied on Kathuria Public School v. Director of Education (2005) to contend that such approval was not required in the case of private unaided schools.

Court’s Observations

The Court first examined whether prior approval of the Directorate of Education was required before removing an employee of a private unaided school.

Tracing the precedential history, the Court noted that Kathuria Public School v. Director of Education (2005) had held that Section 8(2) did not apply to private unaided schools. However, the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Director of Education (2016) held that Kathuria Public School had been wrongly decided. The Supreme Court subsequently applied Raj Kumar retrospectively in Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava (2019).

The Bench further noted that in Meena Oberoi v. Cambridge Foundation School (2019), it had been held that the removal of an employee from a private unaided school could not be effected without prior approval of the Directorate of Education.

Referring to its earlier decision in Asha Rani Gupta v. Ravindera Memorial Public School (2024), the Court reiterated that the contrary view expressed in Red Roses Public School v. Reshmawati (2019) could not prevail in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Marwari Balika Vidyalaya.

The Court observed: “The judgment of the Supreme Court can be said to apply prospectively only if the judgment itself says so. Else, the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India declares the law and a declaration of the law has to be treated as a declaration of law as it always stood.”

Rejecting the School's contention that Raj Kumar applied only prospectively, the Court held that the removal order, having been passed without prior approval of the Directorate of Education, violated Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act and was liable to be set aside.

The School argued that even if the removal order were found invalid, reinstatement would not automatically follow.

Rejecting the contention, the Court observed: “It is axiomatic, in logic and in law, that, if an action is set aside, the status quo ante is restored.”

The Bench further noted that the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Director of Education (2016) and Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava (2019) had directed reinstatement with back wages after setting aside similar orders.

Relying on Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt Industrial Tribunal (1980), the Court reiterated: “plain common sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen”.

The Court also examined the appellant's contention that the Principal and Vice Principal, who had made allegations against her and deposed in the inquiry proceedings, were also members of the Disciplinary Authority.

Agreeing with the submission, the Court held: “The DA could not have included the Principal and Ms. Jasvir Kaur as members, as that would clearly breach the nemo judex in causa sua doctrine. The charges against the appellant included allegations of misbehaviour against the Principal and Ms. Kaur. There cannot, therefore, be any objection to their having deposed in the inquiry, being the alleged victims of the misbehaviour by the appellant. Having done so, however, they could not have been part of the DA. The apprehension of bias which the appellant could legitimately harbour would, therefore, stand assuaged by requiring the DA to be reconstituted without including the Principal or Ms. Kaur”.

The Bench observed that while the Principal and Vice Principal could legitimately testify as witnesses regarding alleged incidents involving them, they could not simultaneously participate in the disciplinary authority adjudicating the matter.

The Court further found it necessary to revisit the disciplinary proceedings in their entirety.

The Bench noted that the appellant had been appointed as a Hindi teacher and had taught Hindi for over three years without complaint. According to the Court, complaints regarding her performance surfaced only after she was suddenly directed to teach English and Environmental Science despite admittedly not possessing graduation or post-graduation qualifications in English.

Observing that these aspects required deeper scrutiny, the Court held: “we expect the IO, in the de novo proceedings that we intend to direct, to holistically examine all aspects of the matter, including the aspect of who the oppressor is, and who the oppressed.”

The Court therefore directed that the disciplinary inquiry be conducted afresh by an independent Inquiry Officer to be appointed through the Directorate of Education.

The Court additionally found that the punishment order removing the appellant from service was completely unreasoned.

The Bench observed that once the appellant had responded to the show cause notice, the disciplinary authority was required to consider her contentions and pass a reasoned order.

The Court noted that the order failed to deal with any of the points raised by the appellant and held that it could not be sustained in law. The Bench directed that any future decision by the disciplinary authority must be reasoned, speaking, and must consider all contentions raised by the appellant.

Conclusion

Allowing the appeal, the Delhi High Court quashed the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the decision of the Delhi School Tribunal, the removal order and the inquiry report.

The Court directed reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service and 50% back wages, subject to furnishing an affidavit regarding gainful employment. It further directed that disciplinary proceedings on the charge-sheet be conducted de novo by an independent Inquiry Officer and clarified that any future action under Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act must be preceded by prior approval of the Directorate of Education.

Cause Title: Rekha Sabharwal v. Management of Saai Memorial Girls School & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4746-DB)

Appearances

Appellant: Advocates Aditya Singla, Supriya Juneja, Arya Suresh Nair, Arvind Menon, Aditi Gupta and Akash Deep

Respondents: Advocate Palak Rohmetra

Click here to read/download Judgment