Facts
The applicant, a PGT (Hindi) holding a Group ‘B’ post at GBSSS Mangolpur Khurd, challenged an order of suspension dated 21.09.2023 and a Memorandum dated 05.10.2023.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2These orders proposed disciplinary inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2Both impugned documents were issued and signed by the Director (Education), GNCTD.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 5The applicant contended that the Director (Education) was not the competent Disciplinary Authority for Group ‘B’ posts.
Source reference: p. 2-3, para. 5Issues
1. Whether the Director (Education), GNCTD, is the competent Disciplinary Authority to issue suspension orders and charge sheets against a Group ‘B’ officer (PGT) under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 5Law Applied
Rule 9(2) and Rule 12(2)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, which stipulate that the "Appointing Authority" or the authority specified in the Schedule is the competent Disciplinary Authority.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5, quoting Udal SinghFor Group ‘B’ posts in the Delhi Administration, the Schedule identifies the Chief Secretary, GNCTD, as the competent authority.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5The court relied on the precedent Government of NCT of Delhi and another v. Udal Singh, WP(C) No. 15643/2024, which held that the Director (Education) lacks the competence to act as the disciplinary authority for such teachers.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5Reasoning
The Tribunal noted that it was undisputed that the applicant holds a Group ‘B’ post.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 5Applying the hierarchy established in the CCS (CCA) Rules and affirmed by the Delhi High Court in Udal Singh, the Tribunal found that the Chief Secretary is the legitimate Disciplinary Authority for all Group ‘B’ officers in Delhi.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5The Director (Education) signed the impugned memorandum and suspension order without having the statutory competence or the delegated power to do so.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5Consequently, since the proceedings originated from an authority lacking jurisdiction, the impugned orders were legally unsustainable.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5-6Holding
The Tribunal allowed the OA, answering that the Director (Education) was not the competent authority.
It set aside the suspension order dated 21.09.2023 and the memorandum dated 05.10.2023, directing the respondents to provide all consequential benefits within four weeks. While the respondents were granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings through the competent authority, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the respondents (payable to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund) for failing to take remedial action despite settled law on the issue.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6(i-iii), para. 6(iv)-7Original Court PDF
Hari Singh MeenavsDIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in