Delhi HC Leaves Fresh Inquiry Order in Place in Teacher’s Sexual-Harassment Complaint After ICC’s One-Day Probe Without Complainant

In brief

The question

1. Whether Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 permits an employee to appeal to the Tribunal where the complaint has not resulted in dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank.

The court held

The Court held that Section 8(3) did not, strictly speaking, provide an appeal in the circumstances, but declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s direction for a fresh ICC inquiry because the original inquiry was flawed.

It also directed

The writ petition was dismissed, and the pending application was disposed of.

01Facts

Respondent No. 1, a PGT (Urdu), complained that the petitioner, a PGT (Hindi) at the same school, had made indecent comments and sexually harassed her.

pp. 1–2

She asked the school to preserve CCTV footage and later identified dates and times for which footage should be checked.

pp. 1–2

The ICC concluded that the available footage did not support the complaint and relied on responses from six randomly selected teachers; it found the complaint baseless and fabricated.

p. 3

On appeal, the Delhi School Tribunal set aside the ICC report and directed a fresh ICC inquiry, finding that Respondent No. 1 had not been given notice or an opportunity to examine witnesses.

p. 3

The petitioner challenged the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and the validity of its order.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 permits an employee to appeal to the Tribunal where the complaint has not resulted in dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank.

pp. 3–5

ii.2. Whether the Tribunal’s direction for a de novo ICC inquiry warranted interference under Article 226, given the alleged procedural deficiencies in the original inquiry.

pp. 5–7

03Law Applied

Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 permits an employee of a recognised private school to appeal to the Tribunal against an order dismissing, removing, or reducing the employee in rank; it does not expressly provide an appeal where a complaint results in none of those consequences.

p. 4

The High Court also considered its power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution and whether the Tribunal’s direction for a fresh inquiry warranted interference.

p. 5, 7

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Delhi School Education Act, 1973 Section 8 Section 11

04Reasoning

The Court agreed that, strictly construed, Section 8(3) did not provide an appeal in this case because the complaint had not led to the dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank of an employee.

pp. 4–5

It nevertheless considered the merits, having regard to the sexual-harassment allegations and the limited relief ordered by the Tribunal.

p. 5

The ICC inquiry was found to be materially deficient: Respondent No. 1 was asked to produce evidence within a short timeframe, was not given notice of the inquiry, and had no apparent opportunity to identify or question witnesses.

pp. 5–6

The report did not record the witnesses’ identities, statements, questions, or the basis for their selection, and it dealt mechanically with the requested CCTV footage.

pp. 5–6

In those circumstances, the Tribunal’s direction for a de novo inquiry was reasonable and did not warrant interference under Article 226.

p. 7