Dalveer Bhandari, J.
(1) The petitioners, namely, Nisha Tyagi, Bimla Devi, Kushal Kanta, and Asha Chopra have preferred this petition in which they have prayed that the suspension order dated 27.6.1994 and charge sheet dated 10.7.1994 issued by respondent No. 1 to petitioner No. 1 be quashed.
(2) It is also prayed that the memorandum dated 20.7.1994 and 1.8.1994 issued to the respondents be quashed.
(3) It is further prayed that respondents 2 and 3 be directed to take over the management of respondent No. 1 School u/s 20 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. It is also prayed that the respondent be directed to pay petitioner No. 1 full pay and allowances w.e.f. 27.6.1994 till her reinstatement. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:
(4) It is alleged in the petition that petitioners No. 1 and 2 are teaching in the primary sections of respondent No. 1 and petitioners 3 and 4 are teaching in the middle sections of school (respondent No. 1). It is mentioned that respondent No. 1 is a recognised Senior Secondary School for clauses from Nursery to Class XII.
(5) Respondent No. 1 is governed by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder.
(6) Mrs. Nisha Tyagi, Petitioner No. 1 joined as a permanent teacher it he primary section of respondent No. 1 school in the month of October, 1992.
(7) Ms Bimla Devi, Petitioner No. 2 joined the primary section of the school (respondent No. 1) as a permanent teacher on 1.3.1987 and continues to be in service.
(8) Mrs. Kushal Kanta, Petitioner No. 3 joined the middle section of the school (respondent No. 1) on 10.12.1984 on permanent basis and continues to be in service. The petitioners were employed by Seema Model School. Respondents 5 and 6, however, stated in their counter affidavit that in fact the Society was running two schools by the same name. They claim that Smt. S. Kohli was Principal of respondent No. 1, school whereas Smt. Krishna Khera was principal of respondent No. 7. Smt. S. Kohli is the daughter of Smt. Krishna Khera.
(9) Mrs. Asha Chopra, Petitioner No. 4 joined the middle section of the school (respondent No. 1) on 1.12.1991 as a permanent teacher and continues to be in employment with respondent No. 1 as a permanent teacher, teaching the middle classes of the school.
(10) It is alleged in the petition that the management of respondent No. 1 has throughout been acting malafide and in a dishonest manner vis a vis large number of employees under it. It is also alleged that the management of-the recognised schools under Rule 98 is vested in the managing committee of the school.
(11) According to the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and Rules framed thereunder, the salary payable to the staff of a recognised school is as per the scales fixed by respondents No. 2 and 3. According to rule 107, no school can pay salary to its staff members less than the minimum amount fixed by respondent Nos 2 and 3. Rule 107 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 reads as under: 107. Fixation Of Pay (1) The initial pay of an employee, on first appointment, shall be fixed ordinarily at the minimum of the scale of pay: Provided that a higher initial pay, in the specified scale of pay, may be given to a person by the appointing authority: Provided Further that no higher initial pay shall be granted in the case of an aided school except with the previous approval of the Director. (2) The pay of an employee on promotion to a higher grade or post shall be determined by the same rules as are applicable to the employees of Government Schools.
(12) It is averred in the petition that to circumvent the aforesaid Rule 107, the management of respondent No. 1 has been resorting to a dubious device to deprive the teachers of their full pay and allowances payable as per law. At the time of giving employment to a teacher, the managing committee gets an account opened of the teacher in a bank and takes blank cheque books from the teachers duly signed, with two signatures at the back at the time of appointment of the teacher. Salaries are credited in the bank account and are withdrawn by the members of the managing committee utilising the signed cheques contained in the cheque books in their possession. It is alleged that a meagre sum of Rs.600 to 800 is paid in cash to the teacher. It is also averred in the petition that the employment being hard to get in this country, the petitioners, who come from the lower middle class families had very little option but to suffer under the respondent No. 1. A large number of other teachers and employees are also being made to suffer likewise.
(13) It is also alleged that having suffered for a long period under respondent No. 1, the petitioners have now decided to stand up to the misdeeds of the Managing Committee. The petitioners wrote letters to the Manager of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vikaspuri, New Delhi requesting him not to honour any cheque issued under the signature of the petitioners. It was also mentioned that the withdrawal from the petitioner''s account should only be allowed if the petitioners were physically present to receive and withdraw the money from their respective accounts. The petitioners wrote identical letters to the Manager of the bank on 4.6.1994.
(14) The petitioners submitted that during their service under respondent No. 1, their service records have been exemplary. The petitioners were never issued any memorandum or charge sheet by respondent No. 1. In fact, the petitioners were issued experience certificates under the signatures of the Principal or respondent No. 1 which acknowledged and certified the petitioners to be able, disciplined, conscientious, hard working and loving teachers. Copy of the experience certificate dated 1.5.1994 issued to petitioner No. 1 has also been filed Along with the petition. Similarly, other letters also have been filed by the petitioners Along with the petition.
(15) The petitioners started facing harassment at the hands of the managing committee and the Principal of respondent No. 1 after they had written letters to the bank. On 10.7.1994, petitioner No. 2 received a letter issued under the signatures of the Principal of respondent No.'' 1 school wherein she was warned not to make any complaint to the local police.
(16) On 20.7.1994, petitioner No. 2 received a memorandum issued under the signatures of the Manager of the school calling upon petitioner No. 2 to explain as to why she had insulted the Manager, the Principal, and Members of the Managing Committee. In the memorandum she was further called upon to answer why she had instigated the staff against the management? And further why she had refused to receive the order? It is submitted that perusal of letter dated 20.7.1994 shows that the allegations raised therein are vague. There is no mention as to when and where petitioner No. 2 insulted the Members of the Managing Committee? And how the conduct of the petitioner amounted to insulting them? Similarly it has not been specified how the petitioner had instigated the Management?
(17) It is also alleged by petitioner No. 2 that issuance of the memorandum by the Manager of respondent No. 1 is malafide and intended to cause harassment to petitioner No. 2 as also to fabricate evidence against respondent No. 2 for contemplated future action.
(18) Respondent No. 1 called upon petitioner No. 3 to submit a photo copy of her pass book by sending a letter dated 23.7.1994. It is alleged that it does not stand to reason as to why petitioner No. 3 was asked to submit a photo copy of the pass book to respondent No. 1 and as to how non furnishing of the same amounted to violation of the official duties?
(19) It is alleged that to cause harassment to petitioner No. 4 and fabricate evidence against her, a memorandum was sent under the signature of the Principal of the School on 1.8.1994. Petitioner No. 4 was charged with issuance of school leaving certificates unsigned and that there were mistakes in the admission and withdrawal register of the school. In reply, petitioner No. 4 mentioned that it was not her job to issue school leaving certificate which was the sole responsibility of the Principal and it was the Principal who was responsible for issuing school leaving certificates without signing the same, if at all they were issued. It was also pointed that making entries in admission and withdrawal register was not the job of petitioner No. 4.
(20) It is alleged that maximum harassment was faced by petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 started receiving letters from the school which contained blank papers. Ultimately, petitioner No. 1 had to send a legal notice through counsel dated 28.6.1994. It was pointed out in the notice that respondent No. 1 was harassing petitioner No. 1 and was creating false evidence against her.
(21) It is averred that to harass and humiliate petitioner No. 1, .she was placed under suspension. She was also charged with unsatisfactory work, acts of commission and commission and indulging in union activities and leading to indiscipline in the school. It is alleged that the charges in the memorandum are totally vague and false. No particulars of any act, whatsoever which could prima facie substantiate the charge were stated in the memorandum. It is submitted that on 1.5.1994 petitioner No. 1 received certificate from respondent No. 1, describing her as an able, disciplined, conscientious and responsible teacher. Petitioner No. 1 was described as producing very good results and was a loving teacher to the children. Immediately thereafter petitioner No. 1 was painted black by the respondent No. 6 after she had sent letter to the bank. It is alleged that memorandum dated 27.6.1994 on the face of it, is illegal and unsustainable.
(22) It is alleged that against the illegal actions of respondent No. 1 the petitioners and also School Teachers and Employees Association of which the petitioners are members, made representations to respondents No. 2 and 3 calling upon the said respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioners and direct an inquiry to be made into the working of respondent No. 1 and take appropriate action. The suspension of petitioner No. 1 was challenged and respondents No. 2 and 3 were requested to direct the respondent No.1 to withdraw suspension and take petitioner No. 1 back in service forthwith. .
(23) This Court issued a show cause notice on 23.8.1994 and directed that the inquiry be stayed till the next date and the said interim order is still continuing. In pursuance of the show cause notice two separate counter affidavits have been filed, one on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4 and another on behalf of respondents 1,5. and 6.
(24) In the counter affidavit, a preliminary objection has been taken that the petitioners are governed by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and proper forum is the School Tribunal under the Act. It is also mentioned that petitioners No. 1 and 2 are teachers belonging to primary school run by the society and petitioners No. 3 and 4 are on the staff of middle school of the society. On that score also petitioners 1 to 4 cannot join in this writ petition and the petition is an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be rejecter on the ground of misguide of parties. It is mentioned that primary section and its staff has nothing to do with the middle school and its staff because both the schools have different identity and different administration.
(25) In the counter affidavit, it is denied that the respondent has ever resorted to any dubious device to deprive the teachers of their full pay and allowances payable as per law. It is also denied that at any point of time the Management Committee has ever taken any duly signed cheque book with signatures on blank cheques on the back.
(26) It is also mentioned in the counter affidavit that petitioners 1 and 2 are teaching in the primary school and not in the primary sections of the school as wrongly stated in the petition. It is also submitted that petitioners No. 3 and 4 are also teaching in the middle school and not in'' the middle section of respondent No. 1 school as stated. The primary school and its staff admittedly has no connection with the middle school and its staff because both the schools have different identity and administration.
(27) It is also stated that petitioner No. 1 has been put under suspension and subsequently was given a charge sheet. It is also stated that enquiry is contemplated against her. This has been strictly in accordance with the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973. And if petitioner No. 1 has any grievance then the proper forum is to approach the Educational Tribunal under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.
(28) It is also stated that respondent No. 1 is only a primary school having been recognised by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and is not a recognised senior secondary school from classes nursery to XIIth.
(29) It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 was appointed on probation for a period of two years w.e.f. October, 1992 and she continues as a teacher in the primary school on probation. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 continues on the rolls of the primary school. In the counter affidavit it is also not denied that petitioner No. 2 has joined primary school on 1.3.1987 and now is a permanent teacher. It is also stated that so far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned, she never joined respondent No. 1 because she is on the rolls of middle school and continues to be in the service of middle school till date and it is not denied that she joined on 1.12.1984 and now is a permanent teacher. Same is the position of petitioner No. 4 except in that she also is not concerned with respondent No. 1 as she is a teacher in the middle school having joined on 1.12.1991 has now become permanent teacher.
(30) In the counter affidavit it is not denied that the suspension can "be immediate but the approval of the authority has to be obtained within 15 days. It is also stated that authorities have been informed about suspension and they have been asked to accord approval in accordance with their Rules and the same is under process. It is also mentioned that it is not necessary to take any prior approval of the Director of Education of the M.C.D. in case of any contemplated disciplinary action.
(31) The petitioners have filed rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of respondents 1, 5 and 6. It is stated in the rejoinder that petitioner No. 1 Nisha Tyagi has been suspended by memorandum dated 27.6.1994 and is not being allowed to join duty in the school in spite of the fact that respondents 2 to 4 have not given approval to the suspension and the continued suspension of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and rules framed thereunder. It is also mentioned that petitioner No. 1, Nisha Tyagi has not been paid any subsistance allowance till date. This fact has been admitted by respondent No. 3 in the counter affidavit. In view of the counter affidavit Filed by respondent No.3, petitioner No. 1 continues to be under suspension, Therefore, is entitled to her full wages.
(32) In the rejoinder it is mentioned that petitioner No. 2 had applied for ordinary leave on account of dysentery and fever from 27.7.1994 till 6.8.1994. The medical leave . of petitioner No. 2 was duly sanctioned by respondent No. 6. And when petitioner No. 2 reported for joining in the school, respondent No. 6 did not allow her to join and directed petitioner No. 2 to report to the staff surgeon, Bara Hindu Rao Hospital for second medical opinion. It is incorporated in the rejoinder that Bara Hindu Rao Hospital issues fitness certificates only to the employees of the municipal corporation. The memorandum dated 9.8.1994 has been issued malafide to prevent petitioner No. 2 from joining the school. It is stated in the rejoinder that petitioner No. 2 did not want to precipitate the matter and reported the Medical Superintendent in Bara Hindu Rao Hospital on various dates. Petitioner No. 2 was told that she could not be issued the fitness certificate because she was not an employee of the M.C.D. Petitioner No. 2 was told that she could get herself examined in the OPD. Petitioner No. 2 got herself examined by the Doctor on duty on the Opd, Bara Hindu Rao Hospital on 30.8.1994, who issued a certificate that she was medically fit on the Opd Card. Petitioner No. 2 reported for duty on 30.8.1992 with the said Opd card but was not allowed to join duty by respondent No. 6 vide letter dated 1.8.1994. Petitioner No. 2 was informed that she could appear before the staff surgeon for complete medical examination. It is also mentioned in the rejoinder that Bara Hindu Rao Hospital does not issue any medical certificate to non-municipal employees, and this fact is within the knowledge of the respondent still they are insisting on this requirement because of mala fide intentions. It is also alleged that since July, 1994 no salary has been paid to petitioner No. 2.
(33) It is stated in the counter affidavit that petitioner No. 3 since 17.10.1994 is not being allowed to sign the attendance register, which is kept in the office of the Principal of the School. The respondents are obviously creating evidence to show that petitioner No. 3 is absenting from her duty in the school. It is also alleged that from 23.11.1994, petitioner No. 3 is not being allowed, even the entry to the school and she has not been paid salary and wages since October, 1994.
(34) It is alleged that petitioner No. 4 has not been allowed to report for duty at the school from 26.8.1994 onwards. Though she is working as a permanent teacher since 11.2.1991. The Principal of the school has served petitioner No. 4 a letter dated 23.8.1992 informing that her services (petitioner No. 4) are not required in the school. Petitioner No. 4 has since then not been allowed to attend duties in the school. It is mentioned in the counter affidavit that services of a permanent employee in a recognised school cannot be terminated. The same can be done only after conducting an enquiry and after getting approval from the Director of Education. Letter dated 28.8.1994, shows that the Management of the school has taken suo moto action without any enquiry. The allegations as contained in the letter that petitioner No. 4 has been coming to the school late and has been raising questions, are false and contrary to the record of the school.
(35) It is also mentioned in the rejoinder that the aforesaid actions of the respondents are pressure tactics being used to prevent the petitioners from pursuing their present writ petition which really amounts to contempt of this Court.
(36) It is also stated that petitioner No. 4 has not been paid her salary since August, 1994. The son of petitioner No. 4, Saurabh Chopra is a student of class VIth in the said school and as per school policy is only paying half tuition fee being a child of a teacher. Respondents are now insisting him to pay for full tuition fee to harass petitioner No. 4.
(37) It is also alleged that the management of the Seema Model School has been grossly violating the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and Rules framed thereunder. It is also mentioned that it is a fit case in which the respondents be directed to take over the management of the present school.
(38) In the rejoinder, it is reiterated that the managing committee took from the teachers blank cheque book duly signed with two signatures on the back. It is also reiterated that every month after withdrawing the amount from the bank, only a sum of Rs.600.00 to Rs.800.00 per month in cash was being paid to the petitioners.
(39) In the rejoinder, it is mentioned that on 9.8.1994 when the petitioners filed this writ petition, all of them were on the rolls of the school. It is denied that the petitioner''s services were terminated vide letter dated 23.8.1994. It is also denied that petitioner No. 4 has been indulging into acts of bad faith and had not performed duties assigned to her. It is also denied that the job of issuing certificate is not the job of the Principal. It is mentioned that letter dated 23.8.1994 has been issued mala fide in violation of the provisions of Section 8 and Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Act, and Rules, 1973. There is no approval of the Director of Education and the question, Therefore, of challenging the order as contained in the letter dated 23.8.1994 before the Tribunal does not arise.
(40) In the rejoinder it is mentioned that in the large number of cases it has been held that where an action is per se malafide and where there is a fundamental breach of the statutory provisions of the Act or where there is complete denial of the principles of natural justice a writ court would not hesitate to strike down an action merely on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It is also mentioned that mere existence of alternate remedy does not bar the jurisdiction of this Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to petitioner No. 4.
(41) In the rejoinder it is denied that on 5.3.1994, 2.4.1994 or 26.4.1994 any memorandums were sought to be served upon the petitioner No. 1. Annexures X-14 to X-17 are false and fabricated documents. It is mentioned in the rejoinder that petitioner No. 1 submits that till the month of May, 1994, there was no problem whatsoever because she was allowing herself to be exploited by the school management. It would, be pertinent to mention that on 1.5.1994 respondent No. 6 in her own handwriting issued an experience certificate to petitioner No. 1 certifying her as being an able, disciplined, conscientious, responsible hard working and loving teacher producing good results. It is alleged that it ''is inconceivable that the same teacher would be issued memorandums dated 5.3.1994,2.4.1994 or 26.4.1994.
(42) In the rejoinder it is reiterated that the charge sheet framed is vague and has no explanatory statement of imputation. It is also mentioned that on the facts as alleged, no charges can be framed. The charge sheet has been issued malafide and is liable to be quashed.
(43) We have perused the pleadings and the documents filed by the petitioners and the respondents in this case carefully. We have also heard the learned counsel for both the sides at length.
(44) Before we deal with the merits of this petition, we deem it appropriate to deal with the preliminary objections of the respondent that the proper forum for the petitioners is the School Tribunal under the Act, and this court has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter.
(45) The appeal lies to the Tribunal u/s 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act. According to Section 8(3), an 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, file an appeal against such order to the Tribunal. This case does not fall in the broad categories mentioned above, and, in cases where there is no fundamental breach of the statutory provisions of the Act and where there is complete denial of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner would be justified in invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(46) In any event mere existence of an alternative remedy does not take away the entire jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(47) In this petition very serious allegations have been leveled against the respondents that the managing committee of respondent No. 1 has been resorting to dubious devices to deprive the teachers of their full pay and allowances payable as per law. At the time of giving employment to a teacher, the managing committee gels an account opened of the teacher in a bank and takes from the teacher blank cheque books duly signed with two signatures at the back. The salaries are credited in the bank account and are withdrawn by the members of the managing committee utilising the signed cheques contained in the cheque books in their possession and teachers are paid a meagre sum of Rs.600 to Rs.800 per month. This allegation has of course been refuted in the counter affidavit and reiterated in the rejoinder. The allegation is very serious in character and if it is found to be correct then another question would obviously arise whether the respondent/State should permit such institution to continue?
(48) Ordinarily in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution it is very difficult to arrive at any definite conclusions but in the instant case from the documents on record, it is clearly established that until May, 1994 there has been no problem between the respondents and the petitioners. As a matter of fact, the Principal has given a letter of appreciation to petitioner No. 1 in which she has mentioned that the petitioner No. 1 is an able, disciplined and conscientious teacher and she has always shown good result and she has been a loving teacher to the children. But immediately after a few days, in June, 1994 when the petitioner decided to stand up to the misdeeds of the managing committee and wrote letters to the Manager of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, requesting him not to honour any cheque under the signature of the petitioners. It was also mentioned that withdrawal from the petitioners'' account should only be allowed when the petitioners are physically present for the withdrawal of the money from their accounts. These letters were written on 4.6.1994 and immediately thereafter the petitioners started facing grave harassment at the hands of the managing committee and the Principal of respondent No. 1. Immediately after addressing of the letters to the bank and lodging of the complaint with the local police for seeking protection ,the managing committee and the Principal got infuriated, and adopted an altitude of vindictiveness.
(49) The petitioners who were able, disciplined, conscientious and loving teachers until May, 1994 became totally indisciplined and worthless teachers in the months of June and July, 1994. Their performance also rapidly deteriorated to an extent that petitioner No. 1 had to be suspended without even adhering to the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
(50) The following chain of events clearly demonstrate the Principal and the members of the managing committee of the school became extremely upset on account of the petitioners'' sending the said letters to the bank and in a revengeful mood and attitude wanted to teach lessons to the petitioners. As a counter blast, principal of the said school and others started harassing the petitioners by issuing number of memorandums and letters to them. Some of these memorandums and letters read as under. When the letters and memorandum were sent are quite material. (i) On 10.7.1994 petitioner No. 2 received a letter issued under the signatures of the principal, respondent No. 1 school, wherein she was warned not to make any complaint to the local police. (ii) On 20.7.1994, petitioner No. 2 received a memorandum issued under the signatures of the Manager of the school calling upon petitioner No. 2 to explain as to why she insulted the manager, the principal and members of the managing committee? It is also mentioned in that letter why she instigated the staff against the managing committee and why she refused to receive the order? (iii) By a letter dated 23.7.1994 respondent No. 1 called upon petitioner No. 3 to submit a photocopy of her pass book. (iv) On 1.8.1994, a memorandum was issued under the signature of the Principal to petitioner No. 4. (v) Petitioner No. 1 became object of maximum harassment after she had sent letter to the bank. It is alleged that thereafter she started receiving even such letters from the school, which contained blank papers and ultimately petitioner No. 1 was forced to send a legal notice to respondent No. 1 through her counsel on 28.6.1994. It was mentioned in the notice that respondent No. 1 was harassing petitioner No. 1 for extraneous considerate and creating false evidence against her. (vi) On 27.6.1994 petitioner No. 1 was served with a memorandum by which petitioner No. 1 was placed under suspension. She was charged with unsatisfactory work, indulging in acts of omission and commission, indulging in union activities,, instigating indiscipline in the school. The suspension was with immediate effect. (vii) On 10.7.1994, petitioner No. 1 was issued with a charge sheet. On 19.7.1994 a letter was posted under the certificate of posting to the petitioner, as an annexure to the charge sheet dated 10.7.1994, the list of documents on which prosecution relied and the list of witnesses.
(51) The chain of events shows that all the Charge sheet, memorandums and letters were issued to the petitioners in the months of June and July, 1994 immediately after the petitioners raised their voice against the illegal actions of respondent No. 1 in May, 1994. The teacher who was able, disciplined, conscientious and responsible in May, 1994, all of a sudden in the next two months she become so indisciplined and had to be put under suspension without resorting to the provisions of the Act.
(52) Similarly, other petitioners have received letters and memorandums in the month of June, July and August, 1994. It may be pertinent to mention that before June, 1994 not a single memorandum had been issued to any of the four petitioners. respondent No. 1 had no grievance whatsoever with the petitioners. On the contrary they were extremely happy and pleased with their conduct, behavior and performance.
(53) According to Section 8(4) of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 which reads as under: ''Where the managing committee of a recognised private school intends to suspend any of its employees, such intention shall be communicated to the Director and no such suspension shall be made except with the prior approval of the Director: Provided that the managing committee may suspend an employee with immediate effect and without the prior approval of the Director if it is satisfied that such immediate suspension be necessary by reason of the gross misconduct, within the meaning of the Code of Conduct prescribed u/s 2, of the employee: Provided Further that no such immediate suspension shall remain in force for more than a period of fifteen days from the date of suspension unless it has been communicated to the Director and approved by him before the expiry the said period.
(54) The language of the section is clear that no suspension shall be made except with the prior approval of the Director. Admittedly, in this case, there has been no prior approval of the Director and in accordance with the Section 8(4), the Managing Committee may suspend the employees with immediate effect if it is satisfied that immediate suspension is necessary within the meaning of the Code of Conduct. In exceptional cases, it may be possible to suspend an employee without, taking prior permission of the Director but no such suspension shall remain in force for more than 15 days from the date of suspension unless it has been communicated and approved by the Director before the expiry of that period. In this case. till this date, the Director of Education has not approved the suspension of petitioner No. 1. The suspension is clearly in violation of Section 8(4) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. Consequently she would deem to be in regular service of respondent No. 1.
(55) Similarly, the memorandums dated 20.7.1994 and 1.8.1994 issued to petitioners 2 and 4 have been issued out of vindictiveness. Petitioners 1, 2 and 4 did not receive any memorandum ever before, were flooded with memorandums immediately after they had sent letters to the Manager of the Bank and made complaint to the local police.
(56) From the various actions of the respondents it can be safely concluded that the respondents 1, 5 and 6 are running and managing the school in violation of provisions of the Delhi School Education Acts and Rules, 1973.
(57) Admittedly, no approval has been received from respondent No. 3. The suspension of petitioner No. 1 ceased to be in force as per the mandate of the second proviso Sub Section 4 of Section 8 of the Delhi School Education Acts, 1973.
(58) In this view of the matter, suspension order dated 27.6.1994 is quashed. Similarly, the charge sheet dated 10.7.1994 issued to petitioner No. 1 is liable to be quashed because the charge sheet lacks in material particulars and has been issued on extraneous considerations consequently petitioner No. 1 shall deemed to be in service and would be entitled to salary, allowances and other consequential benefits from 227.6.1994 (the date when the petitioner was put under suspension).
(59) We have seen the affidavit filed by petitioner No. 1 on 19.12.1996 in which it is mentioned that the respondents have closed the school, (Seema Model School, WZ-B, 9-10, Uttam Nagar), Delhi is mere eye wash. The school has shifted most of the students to the other school being run by the same family at WZ-F-68, Uttam Nagar in this case. Since the respondents have closed the school and transferred the students to another school at F-68, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, Therefore, we direct that petitioner No.1 shall be accommodated in that school. The principal of one school is the mother and of the other school is the daughter. The respondents are directed to pay salary, other outstanding allowances and dues of all the petitioners within one month from today.
(60) Similarly, the memorandums dated 20.7.1994 and 1.8.1994 issued to petitioners 2 and 4 are also liable to be quashed and we order accordingly. The respondents are restrained from taking any action in pursuance of the said memorandums.
(61) We also direct the Director of Education to conduct an enquiry particularly in to the allegations that the managing committee of respondent No. 1 has been resorting to dubious devices to deprive the teachers of their full pay and allowances and if this allegation is found to be correct, in that event the Director of Education is further directed to take all steps to ensure that the teachers are paid full pay and allowances, and rules or the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 are strictly complied with by respondent No. 1.
(62) The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs which we quantify at Rs.5,000.00 . The costs to be paid by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioners within four weeks from today. The writ petition is disposed of on the above mentioned directions.
