School staff suspension lapses if DoE approval is not granted within 15 days: Delhi HC

New Delhi, July 3 (IANS) The Delhi High Court has held that the suspension of an employee of a recognised private school automatically lapses if it is not approved by the Directorate of Education (DoE) within 15 days, clarifying that any approval granted thereafter cannot revive the suspension.

A Full Bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar, Om Prakash Shukla and Renu Bhatnagar answered a reference arising out of conflicting Division Bench judgments on the interpretation of the second proviso to Section 8(4) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.

The issue before the Full Bench was whether an employee’s suspension, initially ordered without the DoE’s prior approval in cases of alleged gross misconduct, could be revived if the Director approved after the statutory 15-day period had expired.

Disagreeing with the view taken in Sharda Devi Sanskrit Vidyapeeth v. Director of Education, the Delhi High Court held that the statutory scheme leaves no scope for revival of a suspension that has already lapsed.

“In case no approval of the director is received within a period of 15 days, the second proviso to Section 8(4) is categorical that the suspension would come to an end. Any approval granted to the suspension thereafter would, therefore, be of no consequence, as there was no suspension in existence. It is not possible to breathe life into a dead body,” the Full Bench said.

It added that the employer’s failure to permit the employee to resume duties after the suspension had lapsed could not be used to justify continuation of the suspension.

“The default of the employer in allowing him to rejoin work cannot result in continuance of the suspension of the employee, contrary to the clear mandate of the second proviso,” the Justice Hari Shankar-led Bench said.

Rejecting the reasoning adopted in the earlier Sharda Devi Sanskrit Vidyapeeth judgment, the Full Bench said that approval granted after the expiry of 15 days does not amount to compliance with the statutory requirement.

“Grant of approval within 15 days of the suspension would comply with the second proviso to Section 8(4). Grant of approval after 15 days would certainly not,” the judgment said.

The Delhi High Court endorsed the principle laid down by an earlier Full Bench in Delhi Public School v. Director of Education, holding that once the initial suspension lapses, the management must pass a fresh suspension order if it still deems suspension necessary.

“Thereafter, it is certainly open to the authorities to take a view that the employee is required to be again suspended, in which case they would have to pass a fresh order of suspension. That is the mandate of the law,” the Justice Hari Shankar-led Bench said.

The Full Bench also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mrs Y. Theclamma v. Union of India, which had declared that a suspension order lapses if no approval is received from the Director within the stipulated period.

“The Supreme Court has also clearly held that, on the expiry of 15 days from the passing of the order of suspension… in the absence of any approval from the Director of Education, the order of suspension lapses. In case any fresh order of suspension has to be passed, fresh prior approval from the Director of Education has to be obtained under Section 8(4),” it said.

Answering the reference, the Delhi High Court held that “if no approval is received to the order of suspension passed in exercise of the power conferred by the first proviso to Section 8(4) of the Delhi School Education Act within 15 days of the passing of the order of suspension, the suspension would automatically come to an end. Any later order of approval passed by the Director of Education would not revive the said suspension.”

The Full Bench agreed with the view expressed in Delhi Public School Dwarka v. Sarika Prasad and expressed its respectful disagreement with the contrary view taken in the Sharda Devi Sanskrit Vidyapeeth judgment.

The matter has now been directed to be listed before the appropriate Bench, as per roster, on July 31 for further proceedings in the main writ petition.

–IANS

pds/dan