The Delhi High Court has affirmed that private recognized schools cannot bypass formal disciplinary inquiries or state regulatory approvals when dismissing probationary teachers on grounds of misconduct.
Dismissing a petition filed by NGF Junior School, Justice Sanjeev Narula upheld a 2018 order by the Deputy Director of Education that mandated the reinstatement of a primary teacher terminated in April 2016. The high court directed the institution to reinstate the educator within four weeks, granting her continuity of service from April 8, 2016, salary fixation with increments, and 50 percent back wages.
Procedural Violations and Misconduct Charges
The dispute stems from a primary teacher appointed on November 1, 2014, under an initial one-year probationary period. In April 2016, the school ended her employment, alleging negligence, unsatisfactory performance, and specific acts of misconduct, including accusations of slapping students.
The court highlighted significant procedural lapses in the dismissal, noting that the school issued the memorandum containing the accusations and the final termination notice on the same day. The institution failed to issue a charge-sheet, provide a statement of imputations, record evidence, or conduct a formal inquiry prior to the firing.
Justice Narula stated that when a dismissal is based on alleged misconduct, an employer cannot evade an inquiry merely by labeling the staff member a probationer. The court stressed that specific allegations must be put to the employee with a fair opportunity to defend against them, observing that the school acted as if its allegations were legally proven without following mandatory procedures.
Statutory Requirements and Probationary Status
NGF Junior School argued that the teacher remained a probationer because no written confirmation order had been issued, asserting that her appointment contract allowed termination without an inquiry. The school also contended that Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973—which requires prior approval from the Director of Education before dismissing recognized private school staff—did not apply to unaided private institutions at the time of her dismissal.
The court rejected these arguments, ruling that Section 8(2) applies to all recognized private schools except unaided minority institutions, making prior administrative approval mandatory. It held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Raj Kumar v. Director of Education applies retrospectively, meaning the school remained bound by the law regardless of the timing of the termination.
Additionally, the court determined that the school had not validly extended the teacher’s probation beyond the initial year, as no approved order or official communication regarding an extension was provided during her service. The court ruled that private employment agreements cannot override the legal protections established by the governing Act and Rules.
As part of the final order, the teacher is required to disclose any income or employment obtained during the period since her dismissal, which will be adjusted against the back wages owed by the school.
