A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has set aside the 2007 removal of an assistant teacher from Saai Memorial Girls School, holding that the disciplinary panel that punished her included people who had themselves complained against her — and that the school never got the mandatory nod from the Directorate of Education before sacking her.
Rekha Sabharwal was working as an Assistant Teacher at Saai Memorial Girls School when she was issued a charge-sheet on 16 October 2006. The charges accused her of inefficiency, poor teaching, and misbehaviour with the Principal and fellow staff members. Notably, none of the charges touched her integrity as an employee.
An inquiry officer found three of the four charges proved, and the school's Managing Committee removed her from service on 29 March 2007. Her appeal to the Delhi School Tribunal failed in 2009, and a Single Judge of the High Court also dismissed her writ petition in February 2017. She then approached the Division Bench through two separate Letters Patent Appeals — one against the school, another against the Directorate of Education.
Justice C. Hari Shankar, writing for the bench, noted that the removal order was passed without prior approval of the Director of Education, a mandatory requirement under Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act for any private unaided school. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Raj Kumar v. Director of Education, which had overturned an earlier Delhi High Court view, the bench held this approval cannot be skipped.
The court also found a serious flaw in how the disciplinary panel was formed. The Principal and Vice-Principal, who had themselves complained about the teacher's conduct and later deposed against her, were also part of the authority deciding her punishment. The bench observed that "nemo judex in causa sua" — no one can be a judge in their own cause — had been breached, since these two could not simultaneously be witnesses and adjudicators.
Digging into the record, the judges also flagged an unexplained shift — the appellant held degrees in Hindi and History, had taught Hindi without complaint for over three years, and was suddenly assigned to teach English and Environmental Studies in August 2006. Complaints against her surfaced only after that switch, and after she had raised concerns about harassment. The court felt this needed a fresh, holistic look.
Separately, the bench found the DA's removal order itself completely unreasoned, merely noting that a show-cause reply was received without actually engaging with it.
In LPA 266/2017, the High Court quashed the Single Judge's judgment, the Tribunal's order, and the original removal, directing a de novo inquiry by an independent inquiry officer. Meanwhile, the appellant is to be reinstated with continuity of service and 50% back wages, subject to the outcome of the fresh proceedings. Any future penalty must first get the Directorate's approval.
However, in the connected appeal, LPA 268/2017, concerning her separate allegation that the school paid salary by cheque but recovered part of it in cash, the bench upheld the Single Judge's dismissal, holding this raised disputed facts unsuitable for writ proceedings, and left the matter open for her to pursue elsewhere.
Case Title: Rekha Sabharwal v. Management of Saai Memorial Girls School & Ors. (with connected appeal Rekha Sabharwal v. Directorate of Education & Ors.)
Case Number: LPA 266/2017 & LPA 268/2017
 and Advocates-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
