Vakil Ahmed vs X And Ors

$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: November 05 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010052252026
+ W.P.(C) 2027/2026 & CM APPL. 9936/2026
VAKIL AHMED .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Akanksha Rai, Mr. Abdul
Vahid & Ms. Dikshita, Advs.
versus
X AND ORS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Abhisehk Budhiraja & Ms.
Sakshi Bohua, Advs. for R1
Mr. Gaurav Dhingra &
Mr. Shashank Singh, Advs. for
R3
Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, SC with
Ms. Shweta Singh & Mr.
Sanjeet Kumar, Advs. for R4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated
15.12.2025 (hereafter ‘ impugned order ’) passed by the Delhi School
Tribunal in Appeal Number 09/2020 pursuant to which the learned
Tribunal set aside the report dated 27.09.2019 passed by the Internal
Complaint Committee (‘ ICC ’) and directed the school to constitute a
fresh ICC and conduct a de novo inquiry into the complaint given by
Respondent No. 1.
2. Succinctly stated, the present controversy involves allegations
of sexual harassment. Respondent No. 1 was working as PGT (Urdu)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 2027/2026 Page 1 of 7

in Shafiq Memorial Senior Secondary School. Respondent No. 1
preferred a complaint against the petitioner, who is also stated to be
working as a PGT (Hindi) in the said school, alleging that the
petitioner passed indecent comments and sexually harassed her. By
her complaint, Respondent No.1 further requested that the CCTV
footage be collected and preserved. The said complaint was forwarded
by the school to ICC on 12.09.2019.
3. On 17.09.2019, Respondent No. 1 was asked to provide the
evidence in support of her complaint against the petitioner till
18.09.2019. Thereafter, on 18.09.2019, Respondent No. 1 stated that
she had sought some clarification from the head of school and would
provide all evidence once the clarifications sought for were received
by her. Respondent No.1 further stated that there were some
discrepancies in the time stamp in the CCTV display which could lead
to distortions in the gravity of proof and stated that she had requested
that the same be fixed. Subsequently on 24.09.2019, Respondent No.
1 further preferred another letter stating that except the messages sent
date wise to the head of school, all other evidences were in the shape
of CCTV footage, and she also provided a list of dates whose CCTV
footages were required to be checked. She further stated that the said
evidence in the form of CCTV footage was only in the dominion and
control of school and she could not by herself prove or demonstrate
the contents of the same.
4. Thereafter, vide report dated 27.09.2019, the ICC found that the
available CCTV system had no audio facility and retained footage
only for fifteen days. ICC further stated that it could not view footage
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 2027/2026 Page 2 of 7

for the period between March 2019 to 12.09.2019 and noted that the
backup available for 17.09.2019 and 20.09.2019 did not demonstrate
any such conduct. The report further recorded that six teachers were
selected randomly who did not support the allegations levelled against
the petitioner. Consequently, Respondent No. 1’s complaint was
found to be baseless and fabricated.
5. Consequently, an appeal was preferred by Respondent No. 1
against the findings rendered by the ICC vide report dated 27.09.2019.
Upon a holistic appraisal, the learned Tribunal found that no notice
was ever given to Respondent No. 1 and that Respondent No. 1 was
never given any opportunity to examine the witnesses. Noting that the
entire proceeding was concluded in a single hearing by oral interaction
of six witnesses in the absence of Respondent No. 1, the learned
Tribunal set aside the report dated 27.09.2019. The learned Tribunal
further directed the school to constitute a fresh ICC and conduct a de
novo enquiry by giving Respondent No. 1 an opportunity to examine
her own witnesses as well as confront the petitioner by examining
him. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
6. The principal ground raised by the petitioner is that the learned
Tribunal did not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal
preferred by Respondent No.1. Learned counsel submits that in terms
of Section 8(3) of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 only an
employee who is dismissed, removed or whose rank has been reduced,
can file an appeal before the Tribunal. It is contested that the learned
Tribunal being a creature of the statute is bound by the confines of the
statute. It has further been argued that the ICC specifically took note
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 2027/2026 Page 3 of 7

of the allegations levelled by Respondent No. 1 and the material
supplied by her to conclude that the complaint preferred by
Respondent No. 1 was without any merit.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1
submits that though the appeal was maintainable, even if the case of
the petitioner is taken at highest, the learned Tribunal had only
directed a fresh inquiry after specifically noting that the same was
conducted without any notice to the victim or any witnesses being
examined. He consequently submits that this Court, taking note of the
peculiar facts of the case, may not disturb the findings rendered by the
learned Tribunal. He consequently prays that the present petition be
dismissed.
8. Having taken note of the rival contentions of the parties, it is
firstly apposite to take note of the grievance expressed by the
petitioner by citing Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act,
1973. The said provision reads as follows:
“8. Terms and conditions of service of employees of recognised
private schools:
(3) Any employee of a recognised private school who is dismissed,
removed or reduced in rank may, within three months from the
date of communication to him of the order of such dismissal,
removal or reduction in rank, appeal against such order to the
Tribunal constituted under section 11.”
9. From a reading of Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education
Act, 1973 as quoted supra, it is apparent that any employee of a
recognised private school who is dismissed, removed or reduced in
rank may prefer an appeal against such order under Section 11. In the
present case, there is no such dismissal, removal or reduction in rank
that stems from the complaint preferred by Respondent No. 1. Stricto
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 2027/2026 Page 4 of 7

sensu thus , as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 does not lay
down an avenue to prefer an appeal when the complaint does not
result in dismissal, removal or reduction in rank.
10. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the jurisdictional objection
raised by the petitioner must nevertheless be juxtaposed in the
backdrop of the nature of the proceedings and the ultimate relief
granted in the present case. Consequently, having regard to the fact
that the underlying dispute concerns allegations of sexual harassment,
the adjudication of which may have a bearing on the interests of
Respondent No. 1 and the learned Tribunal, in any event, only
directed conduction of a de novo inquiry, this Court considers it
appropriate to examine the matter on its merits.
11. On a holistic appraisal of the facts of the present case, it is
apparent that inquiry conducted by the ICC was nothing more than an
empty formality. A bare perusal of the inquiry report reveals the
absence of any reasoned analysis of the allegations levelled by
Respondent No. 1 against the petitioner.
12. Evidently, the ICC inquiry was concluded within a single day.
While it is not the intention of this Court to state that merely because
the inquiry was conducted in a single day, the same was blemished,
however, the cumulative effect of the compressed timetable in which
the evidence was sought by Respondent No. 1, the absence of
recorded witness statements, the dearth of opportunity to Respondent
No. 1 to cross examine the witnesses, the limited CCTV review, the
random manner of selection of witnesses, inter alia, is suffice to hold
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 2027/2026 Page 5 of 7

that the inquiry in the present case was flawed.
13. As apparent chronologically, Respondent No. 1 by letter dated
09.09.2019 preferred a complaint against the petitioner and
specifically also pleaded that the CCTV footage be preserved to
enable her to substantiate the allegations. Interestingly, the letter dated
17.09.2019 required Respondent No. 1 to furnish evidence the very
next day. Respondent No.1 responded on 18.09.2019 and
subsequently by letter dated 24.09.2019, she identified the dates and
time slots for which CCTV footage was sought to be examined.
14. However, without any notice to Respondent No. 1, the inquiry
was concluded in a single day. The inquiry report further only
mechanically deals with the allegations levelled by the petitioner. In a
sweeping manner, it records that six teachers (three male and 3
females) were selected randomly and they were asked one by one if
the petitioner was guilty. The report does not disclose the evidentiary
basis of the six teachers’ alleged responses, their identities or their
statements. There is no record of the questions asked, the answers
given, the dates of the interactions, the basis on which the Committee
selected them. As noted above, there is no indication that Respondent
No. 1 was ever told what these persons had said, and no opportunity,
as discernible from the record, was afforded to Respondent No. 1 to
identify the relevant witnesses or to respond to the material. In fact,
the CCTV footage, that too, without any audio, was also brushed aside
mechanically.
15. Upon a consideration of these facts, the learned Tribunal
without any material adjudication, merely directed fresh constitution
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 2027/2026 Page 6 of 7

of ICC and directed a de novo inquiry by giving an opportunity to
Respondent No. 1 to examine her own witnesses as well as confront
the petitioner by examining him.
16. In the totality of circumstances thus, a mere direction for a de
novo inquiry in the facts of the present case is reasonable and warrants
no interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
17. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 5, 2026
“SS”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 2027/2026 Page 7 of 7