Prior Approval of Directorate Required for Dismissing Staff of Aided Schools Under DSER

Kritendra Sharma (Appellant) was appointed as an Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on probation in 1993

In 1995, the School Management dismissed him from service and lodged an FIR alleging he had secured employment using forged educational certificates

No departmental inquiry was conducted prior to dismissal.

The Delhi School Tribunal (Tribunal) set aside the dismissal in 2011, citing violation of the Delhi School Education Rules (DSER) and directed reinstatement

The School was later taken over by the Directorate of Education (DoE)

On appeal via a Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge upheld the illegality of the dismissal but modified the relief: denying reinstatement due to a 26-year time lapse, and instead awarding ₹5 Lakhs in lieu of back-wages and ₹10 Lakhs as compensation for mental agony and stigma

Both Sharma (seeking reinstatement) and DoE (contesting the compensation) appealed

1. Whether the Appellant obtained employment through forged documents and whether the dismissal followed the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the extension of probation and the subsequent Dismissal Order were valid without the prior approval of the Directorate of Education

3. Whether the substitution of reinstatement with monetary compensation was legally justified

Rule 105 of the DSER, which mandates that probation cannot exceed two years and requires prior approval for extension, failing which "deemed confirmation" occurs

Rule 117 and 120 of the DSER, which dictate that major penalties like dismissal require a formal domestic inquiry and prior approval of the Director of Education

Principles from Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban and Mehboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, which establish that reinstatement is not an automatic consequence of illegal termination and depends on factors like length of service and time lapse

The Court found the dismissal factually and legally untenable. Factually, the Appellant had been acquitted in criminal proceedings where the Trial Court noted the possibility of fabrication by the School

Legally, since Sharma had completed the probationary period without a valid (approved) extension, he was a confirmed employee; thus, his summary dismissal without an inquiry violated Rule 120 of the DSER

The lack of prior approval from the DoE rendered the dismissal void ab initio

Regarding the prayer for reinstatement, the Court reasoned that the 30-year gap since dismissal and the Appellant's own 8-year delay in first approaching the Tribunal (1995 to 2003) made reinstatement "impracticable"

The Court held that the DoE, having taken over the school, was liable for the management's past illegalities but confirmed that a lump-sum payment was more equitable than back-wages plus interest

(i) the dismissal was illegal for want of a domestic inquiry and prior statutory approval

(ii) the Appellant’s acquittal reinforced the lack of evidence for forgery

(iii) given the 30-year litigation history and the switch in management, the award of ₹15 Lakhs total compensation (inclusive of ₹10 Lakhs for mental agony/stigma and ₹5 Lakhs in lieu of reinstatement) with 8% interest was a just "moulding of relief"

All pending applications were disposed of without costs