{"id":180769,"date":"2011-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011"},"modified":"2019-04-12T23:16:34","modified_gmt":"2019-04-12T17:46:34","slug":"rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Rajendra Singh vs Director Of Education on 5 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Rajendra Singh vs Director Of Education on 5 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: S. Muralidhar<\/div>\n
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n                W. P. (C) 2869\/1994 & CM 5450, 5557, 8389\/1994\n                                575\/1997 and 3052\/97\n\n                                                    Reserved on:    August 3, 2011\n                                                    Decision on: September 5, 2011\n\n        RAJENDRA SINGH                                            ..... Petitioner\n                                 Through: Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Senior Advocate\n                                 with Mr. R.S. Hegde and\n                                 Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocates.\n\n                        versus\n\n\n        DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS.                 ..... Respondents\n                       Through: Mr. Rakesh Aggarwal, Advocate\n                       for R-4 to 6.\n                       Ms. Sangeeta Sondhi, Advocate for R-1 to 3.\n\n        CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR\n\n        1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be\n            allowed to see the judgment?                            No\n        2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                   No\n        3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?       No\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                                  05.09.2011<\/p>\n
1. The Petitioner seeks the quashing of an order dated 9th March 1994, passed by the
\nManager of the D.C. Arya Senior Secondary School (\u201ethe School\u201f), Respondent No. 4
\nherein, compulsorily retiring the Petitioner from service under Rule 117 (b) (ii) of the
\nDelhi School Education Rules 1973 (\u201eDSER\u201f). The Petitioner also seeks the quashing
\nof a charge sheet dated 7th February 1990 and for a consequential order to reinstate the
\nPetitioner with full back wages. The further prayer is for a direction to the School to
\nrelease the amount of general provident fund (\u201eGPF\u201f) accrued to the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Petitioner joined Respondent No. 4 School on 20th August 1964 as Teacher
\nGrade-II. At the time of his appointment he was a qualified graduate in Drawing.
\nSubsequently he completed a post-graduate degree in Sociology. He claims that
\nbetween 20th August 1964 and 7th February 1990, he worked satisfactorily and
\nW.P. (C) No. 2869 of 1994                                                 Page 1 of 11<\/span>
\n produced good results in the School. Copies of the commendation certificates issued to
\nthe Petitioner have been enclosed with the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
3. On 7th February 1990 a charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner listing out nine
\narticles of charge pertaining to acts of omission and commission by the Petitioner
\nbetween 1965 and 1990. The Petitioner challenges this charge sheet on various
\ngrounds including, staleness, vagueness and mala fides of the Management Committee
\n(\u201eMC\u201f) of the School, in particular of the then Principal, who was arraigned as
\nRespondent No. 6. The Petitioner in a letter dated 12th February 1990 to the Chairman
\nof the Disciplinary Committee (\u201eDC\u201f) objected to its constitution as not being in
\nconformity with Rule 118 DSER. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1679 of 1990 was filed by
\nthe Petitioner in this Court seeking the quashing of the charge sheet. However, the
\nsaid writ petition was dismissed on 24th May 1990 by a Division Bench of this Court
\nessentially on the ground that the writ petition was premature. It was observed that
\nafter the charge sheet is issued, and a regular enquiry held and if an adverse order was
\npassed against him, then the Petitioner could file an appeal before the tribunal
\nconstituted under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (\u201eDSEA\u201f). Thereafter in July
\n1990, the Petitioner filed a detailed reply to the charge sheet.\n<\/p>\n
4. Respondent No. 3 Mr. R.G. Gupta, who was a member of the Government Boys
\nSenior Secondary School in Lodhi Colony, and was also the Deputy Education Officer
\n(\u201eDEO\u201f) of Zone-18 under which Respondent No. 4 School fell, was appointed as the
\nEnquiry Officer (\u201eEO\u201f). Mr. Gupta after holding the enquiry proceedings for some
\ntime expressed his inability to continue. Consequently, on 13th September 1993, Mrs.
\nK. Upadhayay who happened to be the Principal of the Government Girls Senior
\nSecondary School, Lodhi Colony was appointed as the EO. In the meanwhile, on 3rd\/
\n4th August 1993, Respondent No. 4 School informed the Petitioner that he was placed
\nunder suspension with effect from 3rd August 1993. On 16th August 1993, the
\nPetitioner was informed by the School that the Directorate of Education (\u201eDoE\u201f) had
\ngranted approval to the suspension of the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
5. The Petitioner acknowledges that he received a letter dated 13th September 1993
\nfrom Mrs. Upadhyaya, the EO, who informed him that she had been appointed as such<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 2869 of 1994                                               Page 2 of 11<\/span>
\n and required him to reach the School on 23rd September 1993 to attend the enquiry
\nproceedings. The Petitioner states that he could not have attended the enquiry since
\nthere were orders of the Principal, Respondent No. 5, directing him not to enter the
\nSchool premises. The EO again wrote to the Petitioner on 25th September 1993 asking
\nhim to attend the enquiry in the School on 27th September 1993. On 27th September
\n1993, the Petitioner submitted a letter dated 23rd September 1993 to the EO expressing
\nan apprehension of bias against the EO and demanded that a person equivalent to the
\nrank of Deputy Director of Education (\u201eDDE\u201f) or a higher post should be appointed as
\nthe EO. A similar apprehension was expressed in another letter of the same date to the
\nDoE.\n<\/p>\n
6. The enquiry proceeded with the Petitioner not participating in it. The EO submitted
\na detailed report which found the Petitioner guilty of each article of charge. The
\nPetitioner claimed that he was not supplied with a copy of the report at that stage.\n<\/p>\n
7. On 18th October 1993 the DC accepted the report of the EO and recommended that
\nthe Petitioner be awarded the major penalty of dismissal from service in terms of the
\nRule 117(b)(iv) DSER and that he should be disqualified from employment in any
\naided school. According to the Respondent No. 4 School, a copy of the report of the
\nEO was sent to the Petitioner by Registered Post which he declined to receive. On 21st
\nOctober 1993, when the Petitioner visited the School, he was again sought to be
\nserved with the show cause notice preceding the award of punishment but he refused
\nto accept it. The Petitioner then came to the School on 26th October 1993 and
\ndelivered a letter stating that he had vacated his house and was looking for a
\npermanent address, and correspondence may be sent at 196-D, Gautam Nagar, New
\nDelhi. Accordingly, a copy of the show cause notice was sent at the fresh address
\nwhich was received by him. However, he did not reply to the same. The Petitioner
\nstates that he in the meanwhile made representations on 26th October 1993 and 27th
\nDecember 1993 regarding the appointment of a higher ranking officer as the EO. On
\n23rd December 1993, the DC met to consider the next course of action. Since no reply
\nhad been received from the Petitioner, it was decided to affirm the earlier decision
\ntaken on 18th October 1993 dismissing the Petitioner from service and declaring him
\ndisqualified from employment in any aided school. The DC requested the<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 2869 of 1994                                                Page 3 of 11<\/span>
\n Chairman\/Manager to seek the approval of the DoE. This meeting was not attended by
\nthe staff representative and the EO. By a separate letter dated 24th December 1993 the
\nstaff representative gave his approval. On 9th March 1994, Mr. R.G. Gupta, the DEO,
\nwrote to the School conveying the approval of the DoE to the punishment of
\ncompulsory retirement, and not dismissal as proposed by the DC. It appears that
\nthereafter the Petitioner contacted the DoE and informed him verbally that he had not
\nreceived any show cause notice or copy of the enquiry report. The DoE then informed
\nthe DEO to withdraw the order dated 9th March 1994. On 11th March 1994, a letter
\nwas written by the DoE withdrawing the order dated 9th March 1994. However, by a
\nfurther order dated 21st April 1994, the DoE clarified that the earlier order dated 11th
\nMarch 1994 was void and restored the approval granted by the letter dated 9th March
\n1994. Consequently the order of compulsory retirement of the Petitioner was
\nconfirmed.\n<\/p>\n
8. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned Senior
\ncounsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Aggarwal, learned Advocate for
\nRespondents 4 to 6 and Ms. Sangeeta Sondhi, learned counsel for Respondents 1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
9. A preliminary objection has been taken both by the School as well as Respondents 1
\nto 3 that the Petitioner ought to have first approached the Delhi School Tribunal (\u201ethe
\nTribunal\u201f) before filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
\nIndeed in the order dated 24th May 1990 passed by the Division Bench of this Court
\ndismissing the Petitioner\u201fs earlier Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1679 of 1990, this Court
\npermitted the Petitioner, if aggrieved by the result of the enquiry, to approach the
\nTribunal first. However, since this writ petition has been pending since 8th July 1994,
\nthis Court did not consider it expedient to relegate the Petitioner to the Tribunal after
\nso many years. The Court proceeds to examine the submissions on merits.\n<\/p>\n
10. One ground of challenge is that the entire enquiry was vitiated in law as the
\nPetitioner was not served with any notice of the enquiry proceedings; he was denied
\nan opportunity of participating in the enquiry. The submission is that the Petitioner
\nintimated the School of the change of his address from Govindpuri to 39\/1340, DDA
\nFlats, Madangir, New Delhi, on 12th April 1993. However, even prior thereto a notice<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 2869 of 1994                                                Page 4 of 11<\/span>
\n of the enquiry dated 17th October 1992 was sent to the Petitioner there. It is submitted
\nthat the subsequent notices of 10th December 1992, 15th December 1992 and 28th
\nDecember 1992 were also alleged to have been sent to the address at Madangir which
\nwas not yet the address of the Petitioner since he shifted there only in April 1993. The
\nPetitioner shifted again his address in October 1993 to 196-D, Gautam Nagar, New
\nDelhi but on 18th October 1993, a sealed envelope was sought to be served on the
\nPetitioner at Madangir.\n<\/p>\n
11. Placed on record by the School is a letter dated 17th October 1992 of Rajesh
\nSharma, an employee, in which it is stated that the Petitioner refused to receive the
\nnotice when it was sought to be served upon him. The Petitioner informed the notice
\nbearer that he would meet the EO on 21st October 1992. The EO made a note of this in
\nthe proceedings on 21st October 1992. The EO also recorded in the proceedings that
\non that date a peon was sent to look for the Petitioner. The peon returned stating that
\nthe Petitioner had left the School without any intimation or permission from the
\nPrincipal. This was around 12 noon and the school timings were up to 1.15 pm. The
\nrelevant notings in this regard have also been placed on record. On 10th December
\n1992 the EO issued a notice for the hearing on 15th December 1992. When the
\nPetitioner was approached at the address at Madangir, he again refused to accept the
\nnotice stating that he would meet the EO himself. This was recorded in the
\nproceedings on 15th December 1992. On that date, the Petitioner again did not
\nparticipate in the proceedings. He was again issued a notice for the proceedings on
\n18th December 1992 and thereafter on 31st December 1992. He was again issued a
\nnotice of hearing on 1st May 1993. There is a noting of the teacher to the effect that the
\nPetitioner refused to accept the notice. On 1st May 1993 the proceedings recorded the
\npresence of the Petitioner. The proceedings read as under:\n<\/p>\n
                “Sub: Departmental Enquiry against Sh. Rajendra
\n                       Singh, Drg. Tr.\/TGT<\/p>\n
                Present : Sh. B.L. Singhal, Principal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Notice was again sent to the residence of Sh. Rajendra Singh for
\n                today\u201fs hearing and my man Sh. J.D. Malkani was also
\n                accompanied by Sh. Rajesh Sharma, teacher of D.C. Arya Sr. Sec.
\n                School, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, to serve the notice on 27-04-93
\n                at his residence, 31\/14, DDA Flats, Madangir, New Delhi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P. (C) No. 2869 of 1994                                                 Page 5 of 11<\/span><\/p>\n
                 Although he took the notice, but refused to give any
\n                acknowledgement as per report submitted by the above-named two
\n                persons.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Mr. Rajendra Singh came to the enquiry. Statement of Sh. B.L.
\n                Singal, Principal was recorded in his presence and he confirmed
\n                his remaining documents pertaining to him. However, he refused
\n                to participate and submitted half days leave application and left the
\n                school.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                The notice of the next hearing would be sent in due course.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12. The documents on record show that every attempt was made to serve the Petitioner
\nwith the notices of the hearings of the enquiry. It does appear that the Petitioner
\ndeliberately avoided participation in the enquiry. The proceedings of the enquiry
\ndrawn up by Mr. Gupta when he was the EO have also been placed on record. A
\nnumber of teaching and non-teaching staff of the School gave their statements to Mr.
\nGupta complaining about the unbecoming behavior and conduct of the Petitioner. It is
\nnot possible to draw a conclusion that Mr. R.G. Gupta acted mala fide or did not
\nfollow the fair procedure in conducting the enquiry proceedings. On 4th May 1993,
\nMr. Gupta was asked to be relieved as the EO on account of administrative reasons.
\nOn 7th May 1993, the Principal wrote to the DEO to appoint Mrs. K. Upadhyaya, the
\nPrincipal of the Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Lodhi Road as the EO.
\nMrs. Upadhyaya immediately informed the Petitioner by a letter of her appointment as
\nEO. On the letter dated 21st September 1993 written by her asking him to attend the
\nenquiry, there is a handwritten endorsement of the Petitioner dated 22nd September
\n1993 stating that he could not enter the school premises on account of his being placed
\nunder suspension with effect from 4th August 1993. In her letter dated 25th September
\n1993, the EO made it clear that this was not a valid excuse since it was the MC itself
\nwhich had constituted the DC which in turn had appointed her to enquire into the
\ncharges and therefore, he should now attend the enquiry on 27th September 1993. The
\nPetitioner then raised allegations of bias against Mrs. Upadhyaya stating that she had
\nbeen working under Mrs. U. Menon, Deputy Director (South), who according to the
\nPetitioner was showing “undue interest in the matter relating to charge sheet issued
\nagainst me”. This clearly is a baseless allegation and was rightly ignored by the EO.\n<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 2869 of 1994                                                Page 6 of 11<\/span><\/p>\n
 13. The record of the School in relation to the entire enquiry has been placed before
\nthe Court and has been perused. It contains the originals of the documents relied upon
\nby the MC of the School. There is no basis to doubt the various notings made by the
\npersons who were authorised to serve the copies of the notices and the reports on the
\nPetitioner. There is confirmation from the Post Master, Lodhi Road that the letter
\ndated 20th October 1993 sent to the Petitioner at the address in Madangir was in fact
\ndelivered on 21st October 1993.\n<\/p>\n
14. This Court is not convinced by the submissions on behalf of the Petitioner about
\nhis not having been given a fair opportunity of participating in the enquiry. The
\nallegations of bias made sweepingly against Mrs. Upadhyaya and Mrs. U. Menon were
\nentirely without any basis. There was no justifiable reason for the Petitioner to stay
\naway from the enquiry proceedings. It was not that the Petitioner was not aware of the
\ndates of enquiry. He was finding excuses to not attend them. He cannot now be heard
\nto complain that the enquiry was in violation of the principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
15. As regards the report of the enquiry itself, it is an exhaustive one which has
\nexamined every piece of evidence in great detail. While it is correct that some of the
\narticles of charge relate back to the year 1968 and many to the year 1982, it cannot be
\nsaid that they are entirely without any basis whatsoever or that the findings on these
\narticles of charge are based on no evidence. Had the Petitioner chosen to participate in
\nthe enquiry proceedings, he could have sought to cross-examine the witnesses on
\nbehalf of the School management; he could have questioned the veracity of the
\ndocuments placed on record by the School; he could have examined his own witnesses
\nand exhibited documents to substantiate his defence. With the Petitioner choosing not
\nto participate in the enquiry, it is difficult to doubt the sanctity of the procedure
\nadopted in the enquiry and the conclusions arrived at by the EO. All the charges
\ncannot be dismissed as being vague and unsubstantiated. Some of them relate to the
\nperiod of 1986-87 and some even to 1989-90. In any event, in exercise of its
\njurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not expected to
\nminutely examine each and every finding arrived at by the EO by re-appreciating the
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 2869 of 1994                                                 Page 7 of 11<\/span><\/p>\n
 16. It is submitted that the non-participation of the teacher representative in the
\nproceedings of the DC vitiates the entire proceedings. Reliance is placed on the
\ndecision of this Court in Managing Committee DC Arya Sr. Sec School v.
\nAdministrator, Delhi 1996 Lab IC 1999. The original file of the case with the School
\nhas been produced before the Court. It shows that the proceedings of the DC of 18th
\nOctober 1993 where the report of the EO was accepted and the major penalty of
\ndismissal was proposed was attended by the staff representative and the minutes were
\nsigned by him. As regards the subsequent meeting of the DC held on 23rd December
\n1993 it was in confirmation of the decision taken on 18th October 1993. Although the
\nstaff representative was not present on that date he accorded his approval the very next
\nday. There is therefore no merit in this objection.\n<\/p>\n
17. It is submitted that the Petitioner is a victim of harassment by the management of
\nthe School. Reference is made to the fact that for grant of selection grade the
\nPetitioner had to file CW No. 2121 of 1986 in this Court. The said writ petition came
\nto be allowed after contest by an order dated 16th February 1987. This Court is unable
\nto perceive any link between the said proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings
\nwhich commenced nearly three years thereafter. It is not possible to hold that they
\nwere a counterblast to the Petitioner succeeding in getting his selection grade through
\ncourt proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
18. The next point urged on behalf of the Petitioner has been recorded in the order
\ndated 4th February 2010 of this Court and reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
        “W. P. (C) No. 2869\/1994
\n        Mr. Kailash Vasudev, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner at the
\n        outset has submitted that the necessary approval to the decision of the
\n        Management to compulsory retire the petitioner was not accorded by the
\n        Director of Education in terms of Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education
\n        Rules. Counsel has drawn attention of this court to the letter dated
\n        09.03.1994 whereby the said approval was conveyed by one Mr. R.G.
\n        Tupta (sic `Gupta\u201f), the then Deputy Education Officer, to the Chairman
\n        of the D.C. Arya Senior Secondary School but just after a gap of two days
\n        the same very officer conveyed to the Chairman of the School that the said
\n        letter according approval stands withdrawn due to some procedural
\n        deficiencies. Again the same very officer vide letter dated 21.04.1994
\n        wrote back to the Chairman of the School not to give any cognizance to
\n        the letter dated 11.3.1994 and the same be treated as null void.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P. (C) No. 2869 of 1994                                               Page 8 of 11<\/span><\/p>\n
         Ms. Meenakshi, counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits
\n        that Mr. R.G. Gupta was not the competent authority to have withdrawn
\n        the said approval which was granted by the Director Education. If that is
\n        the situation then let the counsel on instructions explain as to whether any
\n        action against the said officer was taken by the Director of Education or
\n        not. Let an affidavit in this regard be filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3
\n        within a period of two weeks.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
19. Pursuant to the above order, an affidavit has been filed by Mrs. Anita Setia,
\nDeputy Director of Education, on 11th March 2010 placing on record the fact of the
\napproval granted by the DoE regarding the withdrawal and restoration of the approval
\nof the award of major penalty. However, since the documents enclosed with this
\naffidavit were incomplete this Court asked to be shown the original file. The file of the
\nDoE contains a detailed note dated 3rd January 1994 prepared by Mr. R.G. Gupta on
\nthe case without expressing any opinion of his own. The matter was then placed before
\nthe DoE, Mr. Shakti Sinha who then decided to place it before the OSD who prepared
\na very detailed note dated 7th February 1994 raising certain queries. Mr. Gupta then
\nprepared a further detailed note on 9th February 1994. The ALA then prepared a note
\non 17th February 1994 in which he proposed alternative courses of action. It is not,
\ntherefore, that Mr. R.G. Gupta himself has played any role in causing the ultimate
\ndecision of the DoE regarding the penalty to be imposed. It is apparent that the DoE
\ndid concur with the proposal for imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement.
\nAccordingly, on 9th March 1994 the approval was communicated to the School. There
\nis a noting of 11th March 1994 of Mr. R.G. Gupta referring to a telephonic message
\nreceived from the DoE asking him to withdraw the approval granted on 9th March
\n1994 regarding the award of major penalty. There is also a separate noting of DoE
\nenquiring whether the legal requirement of having to furnish a copy of the enquiry
\nreport to the Petitioner, giving him a notice about the proposed action and calling upon
\nhim to submit his response was complied with. On 16th March 1994 there is a noting
\nto the effect that there were two registered letters sent to the charged official and the
\npostal authorities had given a certificate confirming service of the said notices. This
\nCourt has also examined the documents placed on record including the certificate
\nissued by the postal authorities.\n<\/p>\n
20. The sequence of events as can be reconstructed from the notings on the file of the<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 2869 of 1994                                                Page 9 of 11<\/span>
\n DoE is that after detailed deliberations, the Chairman of the School was informed on
\n9th March 1994 that the DoE had granted approval to the imposition of the penalty of
\ncompulsory retirement under Rule 117 (b) (ii) DSER. Then came the telephonic
\nconversation between the DoE and Mr. Gupta which was as a result of the verbal
\nrepresentation made by the Petitioner. This led to the letter dated 11th March 1994
\nwritten by the DoE to the School stating that the earlier letter stood withdrawn. The
\nSchool then made a detailed representation on 24th March 1994 pointing out that there
\nwas no provision in law to withdraw an approval already granted. This was, in fact,
\nthe correct legal position. The matter was then once again examined exhaustively. The
\nfile went up to the Minister of Education. The noting on file is that he was of the
\nview: “let the justice takes its course”. The DoE was informed that the steps of
\nfurnishing the Petitioner with a copy of the enquiry report and providing him an
\nopportunity to represent against the proposed action had indeed been taken.
\nAccordingly, it was finally concluded that the punishment of compulsory retirement
\nwould stand. It was on this basis that on 21st April 1994 a letter was written to the
\nSchool stating that the earlier approval granted on 19th April 1993 will stand and the
\nsubsequent letter dated 11th March 1994 stood withdrawn. The confusion created by
\nthe withdrawal of the approval on 11th March 1994 was avoidable. Clearly, it was
\nwithout the authority of law. The detailed notings on file make it clear that the
\nprocedure followed was in accordance with law. It was out of abundant caution that
\nthe letter dated 11th March 1994, followed by the further letter dated 21st April 1994,
\ncame to be issued. Consequently, even as regards the imposition of major penalty of
\ncompulsory retirement on the Petitioner, the procedure in accordance with law has
\nbeen duly followed.\n<\/p>\n
21. Consequently, this Court is satisfied that there is no merit in the contentions of the
\nPetitioner about any procedural irregularity or illegality having been committed in the
\nconduct of the enquiry proceedings or the award of punishment to the Petitioner. As
\nregards the non-payment of the PF dues there is a dispute as to whether the Petitioner
\nrefused it when offered. Be that as it may, if there are still any PF dues owing to the
\nPetitioner then the DoE should help him to recover the same in accordance with law if
\nhe makes a request in that regard.\n<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 2869 of 1994                                                 Page 10 of 11<\/span><\/p>\n
 22. The writ petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs.
\nAll pending applications are disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             S. MURALIDHAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
SEPTEMBER 5, 2011
\nakg<\/p>\n
W.P. (C) No. 2869 of 1994                                               Page 11 of 11<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Rajendra Singh vs Director Of Education on 5 September, 2011 Author: S. Muralidhar IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W. P. (C) 2869\/1994 & CM 5450, 5557, 8389\/1994 575\/1997 and 3052\/97 Reserved on: August 3, 2011 Decision on: September 5, 2011 RAJENDRA SINGH ….. Petitioner Through: Mr. Kailash Vasdev, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-180769","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajendra Singh vs Director Of Education on 5 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajendra Singh vs Director Of Education on 5 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-12T17:46:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajendra Singh vs Director Of Education on 5 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-12T17:46:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3961,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Rajendra Singh vs Director Of Education on 5 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-12T17:46:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajendra Singh vs Director Of Education on 5 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rajendra Singh vs Director Of Education on 5 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajendra Singh vs Director Of Education on 5 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-12T17:46:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajendra Singh vs Director Of Education on 5 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-12T17:46:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011"},"wordCount":3961,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011","name":"Rajendra Singh vs Director Of Education on 5 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-12T17:46:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-director-of-education-on-5-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajendra Singh vs Director Of Education on 5 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180769","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=180769"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180769\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180769"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180769"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180769"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}