Court upholds Rs 15 lakh compensation for school clerk ‘illegally’ dismissed 31 years ago

The school’s allegation that Kritendra Sharma had secured employment based on forged documents was not substantiated, Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia found.

The high court noted that the school failed to establish that Sharma committed forgery by submitting fake certificates, as alleged in the dismissal order.

‘No forgery, yet dismissed’

• The court held that the dismissal order passed by the authority concerned was passed without adherence to due process of law and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
• The Delhi High Court found that the allegation of the school that Sharma had secured employment based on forged and fabricated documents does not appear to be substantiated.
• The court noted that the clerk approached the tribunal only in 2003, although his services had been terminated in 1995.
• It was added that this delay assumes significance, particularly with the fact that the termination was connected with Sharma’s marriage to the niece of the chairman of the school.
• It was further added that it was also important as a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against him on the very same date on which he was arrested and subsequently released on bail.
• In these circumstances, the court said the clerk’s plea that he became aware of the dismissal order only in 2003, when his wife sought the same under a Right to Information (RTI) plea, does not inspire confidence.

Reinstatement impractical

• The court mentioned that the reinstatement to the same post of upper division clerk after a gap of nearly 30 years would be impracticable for both Sharma and the school, particularly when there is no material on record indicating the nature of his engagement or employment during the intervening period.
• The court clarified that the contention of the DoE that it cannot be directed to pay the sum of Rs 15 lakh on the ground that no fault is attributable to it also cannot be accepted.
• The high court stated that upon taking over the school, the DoE became liable for the acts and omissions of the school’s former management.
• Accordingly, the DoE can have no valid grievance with respect to the direction to pay compensation with interest to Sharma.

Joined in 1993, dismissed in 1995

Sharma was appointed to the post of upper division clerk on probation for a period of one year on July 31, 1993 and joined on August 3, 1993. The probationary period was extendable at the discretion of the appointing authority.

The said school directed Sharma to produce the originals of his 10th and 12th class certificates as well as his graduation degree; however, the said originals were not furnished. Thereafter, according to the school, Sharma remained absent from the school with effect from January 12, 1995 without obtaining permission from the management. The school allegedly issued a memorandum dated January 16, 1995, and February 1, 1995, calling upon him to resume duties and furnish the original certificates and degree.

The school dismissed Sharma from service, allegedly without conducting a departmental inquiry, and also lodged an FIR alleging cheating and forgery on February 14, 1995. He was arrested three days later and subsequently released on bail.

Aggrieved by the same, Sharma challenged his dismissal before the Delhi School Tribunal. The appeal was initially dismissed as time-barred.

Later, Sharma approached the Delhi High Court, which on January 28, 2010, set aside the tribunal’s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on merits.

The tribunal held the dismissal illegal, set it aside and directed Sharma’s reinstatement on May 13, 2011.

During the pendency of the litigation, the school was taken over by the DoE in July 2017 due to mismanagement, and the DoE was later permitted to continue the proceedings on behalf of the school.

Later, the trial court acquitted Sharma in the criminal case, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the forgery allegations beyond reasonable doubt.

Subsequently, a single judge of the Delhi High Court upheld the finding that the dismissal was illegal but replaced reinstatement with Rs 15 lakh compensation, where Rs 5 lakh was awarded instead of reinstatement and back wages, and Rs 10 lakh for mental agony, stigma and prolonged litigation.

Challenging this order, both Sharma and DoE filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court.

‘Family suffered’

Appearing for Sharma, advocate Anuj Dhir argued that the single judge was not justified in denying reinstatement once it had been held that the dismissal order was illegal and liable to be set aside.

It was added that the single judge committed an error, both in law and on facts, by denying reinstatement and back-wages and awarding compensation instead.

It was argued that the suffering occasioned by the said action was not confined to Sharma alone, but extended to his family as well, and that such deprivation could not be adequately compensated in monetary terms.

‘Secured job with forged documents’

On the contrary, the DoE’s counsel argued that the single judge failed to appreciate that the appointment of Sharma was secured based on forged and fabricated documents and, therefore, it was void ab initio and he cannot claim protection under the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.

It was added that several opportunities were given to Sharma to file his reply to several memos as well as the show-cause notice, which Sharma failed to avail.

It was further argued that even after the dismissal order was passed in 1995, Sharma chose not to challenge his dismissal order for eight years.