inkinccorporation@gmail.com
Delhi High Court – Orders
Mrs Pawan Jashial vs Khalsa Middle School & Ors on 26 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2701/2026, CM APPL. 13071/2026
MRS PAWAN JASHIAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nikhilesh Ramachandran,
Mr. Shubham Seth and Mr. Aditya
Krsihnan, Advocates.
versus
KHALSA MIDDLE SCHOOL & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshit Gupta, Advocate for R-6.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Ms. Vishruti Pandey and Mr.
Sachin Garg, Advocates for R-4, 7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 26.02.2026
1. This petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution assails the order
dated 22nd September, 2025, passed by the Delhi School Tribunal
(“Tribunal”), in Appeal No. 34/2020, titled Mrs. Pawan Jashial v. Khalsa
Middle School & Ors.¸ whereby the Tribunal upheld the Petitioner’s
removal from service as Yoga Teacher in Khalsa Middle School, Sarojini
Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Stripped of unnecessary details, the controversy centres on whether
the Petitioner secured appointment in a recognised aided school on the
strength of a qualification which, upon verification, stood disowned by the
University under whose recognition the diploma was projected; and, if so,
whether the disciplinary proceedings and the Tribunal’s affirmation suffer
from such illegality or perversity as to warrant interference in exercise of
writ jurisdiction.
W.P.(C) 2701/2026 Page 1 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:51:35
Factual Background and Procedural History
3. The Petitioner was appointed as a Yoga Teacher by the school
management on the representation that she possessed a one-year “Diploma
in Yoga & Naturopathy” from Respondent No. 5 (Bapu Nature Cure
Hospital & Yogashram), stated to be recognised by Respondent No. 6
(Gujarat Ayurved University, Jamnagar). At the time of appointment, she
furnished an undertaking/affidavit that her services could be terminated if
any certificate was found fake or false.
4. In 2014, the school sought verification of her credentials. By
communication dated 13th October, 2014, Gujarat Ayurved University stated
that the Petitioner was not enrolled for the diploma course in the relevant
year and that the “Degree certificate” and “Mark statement” were not issued
by the University. The Communication reads as follows:
“To
Jaspal Singh
Manager, Khalsa Middle School
Sarojini Nagar, New DelhiSubject:- Regarding verification of certificate and mark statement of
Mrs. Pawan Jshial for the degree of Yoga & Naturopathy
Ref:- Your Latter dated. 14-8-14.
Dear Sir,
With reference and subject cited above the name of Mrs. Pawan
Jashial is not enrolled for the course of Diploma in Yoga &
Naturopathy run by Bapu nature cure Hospital and yogashram,
Gandhi Nidhi, Patparganj, Delhi – 110091 recognized by Gujarat
Ayurved University, Jamnagar for the said year. As per our record
this Degree certificate and Mark statement is not issued by this
University.
This is for your kind information and necessary action in this
regard.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
W.P.(C) 2701/2026 Page 2 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:51:35
(Dr. D.B. Vaghela)
I/c. Deputy Registrar
Academic Section”
5. A show cause notice dated 18th December, 2014, followed. The
Petitioner responded vide letter dated 23rd December, 2014 asserting the
genuineness of her documents and that they will be substantiated by
Respondent No. 5. The Petitioner relied upon a letter issued by Respondent
No. 5 on 27th December, 2014, which, according to her, affirms that she had
completed the course.
6. The matter was simultaneously referred to the Respondent No. 4,
Directorate of Education (“DoE”), for independent verification. DoE
addressed a communication dated 4th September, 2015 to Gujarat Ayurved
University seeking confirmation regarding the authenticity of the
Petitioner’s diploma and mark statement. In response, the Assistant
Registrar of the University reiterated, vide letter dated 22nd September, 2015,
that as per its records the Petitioner was not enrolled for the said course and
that the certificate and mark statement relied upon by her were not issued by
the University. Upon receipt of this information, the Deputy Director of
Education, by letter dated 19th December, 2015, advised the school
management to initiate action against the Petitioner in accordance with the
provisions of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973. It was in this
backdrop, and after considering the communications received from the
University through the Directorate, that the Managing Committee resolved
to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
7. Ultimately, the school issued a memorandum of charges dated 14 th
March, 2016 alleging that the Petitioner obtained appointment by fraud by
submitting a false diploma and mark sheet/statement claimed to be
W.P.(C) 2701/2026 Page 3 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:51:35
recognised by Gujarat Ayurved University.
8. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) 2854/2016
challenging the initiation of disciplinary proceedings on the footing that the
action was not taken by a duly constituted disciplinary committee under
Rule 118 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (“DSE Rules”). By
order dated 5th December, 2016, this Court rejected that challenge after
reproducing the minutes of the meeting dated 12th March, 2016 and holding
that the relevant requirements of Rule 118 of the DSE Rules stood satisfied.
The writ petition was dismissed, with a clear observation that the merits
were to be examined in the disciplinary proceedings. The said order reads as
follows:
“1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India by the petitioner, and who is a teacher in the respondent
no.1/school, impugning the show cause notice dated 14.3.2016 by
which it is proposed that disciplinary proceedings be taken against
the petitioner for having obtained her employment with the
respondent no.1/school by fraud because petitioner had represented
that she had a diploma in Yoga and Naturopathy from the Gujarat
Ayurved University, but, on verification from Gujarat Ayurved
University, it was found that the name of the petitioner was not found
to be enrolled for the course of diploma in Yoga and Naturopathy
run by the Bapu Nature Cure Hospital & Yogashram, Gandhi Nidhi,
Patparganj, New Delhi recognized by the Gujarat Ayurved
University.
2. On behalf of the petitioner, to question the disciplinary
proceedings it is argued that the impugned show cause notice dated
14.3.2016 is without jurisdiction because it is signed by the Manager
of the school without their having been constituted a proper
disciplinary committee under Rule 118 of the Delhi School
Education Rules, 1973 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). It is
argued that there is a requirement as per Rule 118 of the Rules that
in the disciplinary committee, there must exist the nominee of the
Director of Education as also the staff representatives, but, not only
these persons are not found in the meetings of the managing
committee of the respondent no.1/school dated 12.3.2016 as per
which it was decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings, in fact the
managing committee is not authorized to take disciplinary action asW.P.(C) 2701/2026 Page 4 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:51:35
it is only the disciplinary committee under Rule 118 which is
authorized to take disciplinary action.
3. For the sake of convenience. Rule 118 of the Rules is referred
to as below:-
“Rule 118. Disciplinary authorities in respect of employees:- the
disciplinary committee in respect of every recognized private school,
whether. The aided or not, shall consist of-
(i) the Chairman of the managing committee of the school:
(ii) the manager of the school;
(iii) nominee of the appropriate authority, in the case of an unaided
school; a nominee of the Director, in the case of an aided school, or
a
(iv) the head of the school, except where the disciplinary proceeding
is against him and where the disciplinary proceeding is against the
Head of the school, the Head of any other school, nominated by the
Director,
(v) a teacher who is a member of the managing committee of the
school, nominated by the Chairman of such managing committee.”
4. Since the issue is that whether certain requirements as
alleged/argued by counsel for the petitioner of the provision of Rule
118 of the Rules have been complied with or not, let me reproduce
the minutes of the meeting of the managing committee dated
12.3.2016 of the respondent no.1/school and these minutes of the
meeting of the managing committee read as under:-
“The meeting of the managing committee of Khalsa Middle School,
Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi-110023, held on 12-03-2016 at 12.30 PM
under the Presidentship of S. Sucha Singh in the school. The
members who have signed against their name are present.
1. S. Sucha Singh (President) sd/-
2. S. Pritpal Singh(V. President)
3. S. Jaspal Singh (Manager) sd/-
4. S. Balvinder Singh (Asstt. Manager) sd/-
5. S. Charanjit Singh (Accountant) sd/-
6. Smt. Jasbir Kaur (Member) sd/-
7. S. Manjit Singh (Member)
8. S. S.P. Singh (Headmaster) sd/-
9. Principal S.K.V. No.1 (Ad. Board Nominee)
10. Smt. Sumanjit Kaur (Staff Representative) sd/-
11. Smt. Sukhjeevan Kaur (Staff Representative) sd/-
12. S. Hukam Singh (Parent Member)
13. Principal GGSSS No.3 (D.E’s Nominee)
14. Vice Principal G.B.S.S. No.3(D.E’s Nominee) J.S Dhama- sd/-
15. Vice Principal G.B.S.S. No.4 (Adv. B. Nominee) sd/-
Dr. Hitender Yadav.
Minutes of the Last meeting held on 26-12-2015 are
W.P.(C) 2701/2026 Page 5 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:51:35
confirmed unanimously. It was decided that in the previous meeting
S. Jaspal Singh should obtain the copy of letter written by the
Education Department, Govt of NCT of Delhi to Gujarat Ayurvedic
University for verification of Diploma and mark sheet submitted by
Mrs. Pawan Jashial (Yoga teacher) at the time of her appointment
and also obtain a copy of letter received by the Education
Department from Gujarat Ayurvedic University, which were
mentioned by the Deputy Education Officer Zone (19), South West
(A), in her letter dated 05/19-12-2015 because in the absence of the
Letters dated 05/19-12-2005 the Letter is incomplete. Accordingly S.
Jaspal Singh (Manager) written a letter dated 31-12-2005 to Deputy
Education Officer to send copies of the aforesaid Letter along with
enclosure.
The Deputy Director sent the copies of both the above letters
vide F.No.-2.19/DDE (SW) A 2016/08 dated 2/5-1-2016. S. Jaspal
Singh placed both the above Letter before the Managing Committee.
The Managing Committee unanimous resolved and
authorized S. Jaspal Singh (Manager) to issue a charge sheet to Mrs.
Pawan Jashial (Yoga teacher) for submitting a false Diploma in
Naturopathy and false mark sheet on which it is written Recognized
by Gujarat Ayurvedic University. But on verification from the above
said University verified that Mrs. Pawan Jashial was not enrolled
for the course of Diploma in Yoga and Naturopathy by Baput Nature
Cure Hospital And Yogashram Gandhi Nidhi, Patparganj Delhi-91
recognized by Gujarat Ayurvedic University for the said year.
The Managing Committee further authorized the Manager S.
Jaspal Singh to appoint Shri B.S. Kapoor as enquiry officer to
conduct enquiry on above charges against Mrs. Pawan Jashial
(Yoga Teacher).
The Managing Committee also authorized S. Jaspal Singh
Manager to award punishment if enquiry officer in his enquiry
report found that the charges are proved or otherwise as per the
findings of enquiry officer.
After thanks to the Chairman
The meeting disbursed.”
Sd/- (underlining added)
5. A reference to the minutes of the meeting dated 12.3.2016 of
the managing committee of the respondent no.1/school shows that
the said meeting comprised of Chairman of the school, the Manager
of the school, nominee of the Director of Education and the staff
representatives of the school and which are the relevant four
requirements of the Rule 118 of the Rules and hence it cannot be
argued that Rule 118 is not complied with. At serial no.1 of the
meeting dated 12.3.2016 is S. Sucha Singh, the President and
W.P.(C) 2701/2026 Page 6 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:51:35
Chairman of the respondent no.1/school. At serial no.3 is S. Jaspal
Singh who is the Manager of the school. The nominee of the Director
is Sh. J.S. Dhama who is at serial no.14 of the list of persons and the
staff representatives are found at serial nos.10 and 11 of the minutes
of the meeting dated 12.3.2016. All these persons are signatories to
the minutes of meetings dated 12.3.2016. Therefore, the minutes of
the meeting dated 12.3.2016 show that all persons who ought to be
part of the disciplinary committee under Rule 118 of the Rules were
very much part of the meeting/resolution dated 12.3.2016 and who
authorized taking of disciplinary action against the petitioner and
for the Manager of the school to issue the show cause notice dated
14.3.2016.
6. Therefore, in my opinion, it is incorrect for the petitioner to
contend and argue that Rule 118 of the Rules has been violated,
because, it is found that in fact the minutes of the meeting dated
12.3.2016 show that the meeting/committee comprised of persons
who are to be the members of the disciplinary committee as per
Rule 118 of the Rules.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it is only the
disciplinary committee properly constituted as per Rule 118 of the
Rules which is authorized to take action, and action cannot be taken
by the managing committee of the respondent no.1/school, however,
this argument urged is an argument of desperation because the
managing committee is a larger and higher body than the
disciplinary committee and once the necessary members of the
disciplinary committee are a part of the members of the managing
committee in the meeting dated 12.3.2016, it cannot be argued that
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be
faulted with because of the violation of Rule 118 of the Rules.
Obviously, a larger and higher body will have all the powers of a
smaller body which is constituted, and which is all the more so when
the larger and higher body is found to have the necessary members
who are to be comprised in the smaller body being the disciplinary
committee as per Rule 118 of the Rules.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner then sought to draw
attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the Director of
Education, and in which the Director of Education has stated that it
has taken action against the respondent no.1/school because the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner are by the managing
committee and not the disciplinary committee, however, this
argument and the relevant part of the counter affidavit of the
respondent no.4 is without any substance for the reason that the
counter affidavit cannot be final so far as the legal position is
concerned, and the legal position which has to be examined has to
be examined by this Court on the basis of facts as to whether the
W.P.(C) 2701/2026 Page 7 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:51:35
managing committee can or cannot issue a show cause notice for the
disciplinary committee when the managing committee comprises of
members who ought to form part of the disciplinary committee. The
Director of Education in law therefore is incorrect in taking its view
that the managing committee could not have taken steps as per its
minutes of meeting dated 12.3.2016 for initiating disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner. In fact, I must note at this stage
that the aforesaid last contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is
only on convenient reading of the counter affidavit of the respondent
no.4 because respondent no.4 in the same counter affidavit in para 6
of the preliminary submission has mentioned the fact that the
respondent no. 4 had issued direction to the respondent
no.2/Manager of the school in terms of respondent no.4’s letter dated
19.12.2015 to initiate action against the petitioner because
petitioner was found to have taken the employment by perpetuating
fraud and by giving a false certificate. Also, in the counter affidavit
of the respondent no.4 it has stated as per the paragraphs in reply to
the grounds that even if the managing committee does not have the
requisite powers, this technical objection should not allow the
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner to fail because of the
petitioner in fact being guilty of perpetuating fraud upon the school
by filing a false certificate of qualification.
9. In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition, and
the same is therefore dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own
costs. All aspects of merits will be decided in the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the petitioner, in accordance with
law.”
[Emphasis supplied]
9. The Petitioner then preferred LPA No. 705/2016, which was
dismissed as withdrawn on 14th November, 2017, with liberty to agitate legal
issues at the appropriate stage and with a direction that the enquiry be
proceeded with.
10. The Petitioner thereafter participated in the enquiry which culminated
in a report dated 25th August, 2018, holding the charge proved. The
Disciplinary Action Committee (“DAC”) considered the Petitioner’s
representation and proceeded to propose the major penalty of removal from
service. After further opportunity and consideration, the penalty was
W.P.(C) 2701/2026 Page 8 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:51:35
imposed. The Petitioner appealed to the Tribunal under Section 11(6) of the
Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (“DSE Act“). The Tribunal, by impugned
order dated 22nd September, 2025, dismissed the appeal.
Submissions
11. The Petitioner challenges the impugned order on multiple grounds. It
is contended that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated for non-
compliance with Rule 118 of the DSE Rules and allied safeguards, including
the nomination requirement adverted to in the departmental notification
dated 25th June, 2012, which mandates that the Director’s nominee must be
an Education Officer or Deputy Education Officer of the concerned zone. It
is further urged that Rule 120(2) of the DSE Rules was breached, as prior
approval of the DoE was not obtained before imposition of the major
penalty. In that regard, reliance is placed upon Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. Air
Force School1. The Petitioner also assails the enquiry on grounds of
violation of principles of natural justice and disputes the finding that her
diploma was false.
12. Elaborating her submissions, the Petitioner contends that she
possessed a genuine Diploma in Yoga & Naturopathy from Respondent
No.5 for the academic session 2002-03, at a time when Respondent No. 5
was recognised by Respondent No. 6. The post in question required a
diploma from a recognised institution and not necessarily a certificate issued
directly by the University.
13. Reliance is placed on the letter dated 8th June, 2004 issued by the
University to Respondent No. 5, which demonstrates that Respondent No. 5
was within the University’s recognition framework for the academic years
W.P.(C) 2701/2026 Page 9 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:51:35
2003-04 and 2004-05. This, according to the Petitioner, supports the position
that Respondent No. 5 was recognised when she pursued and completed her
course.
14. Further reliance is placed on repeated and consistent affirmations
from Respondent No. 5, including letters dated 27th December, 2014, 22nd
April, 2015 and 16th May, 2015, stating that the Petitioner was a bona fide
student, that she completed the diploma course, and that she appeared in the
examinations conducted by Respondent No. 5. The Tribunal failed to
appreciate the distinction between an institution being ‘recognised/affiliated’
and the University itself ‘issuing’ a certificate. An institute recognised to run
a course may conduct examinations and issue certificates in its own name,
and the Tribunal erred in treating the University’s statement that it did not
itself issue the certificate as conclusive proof of falsity, without examining
whether Respondent No. 5 had authority to award the diploma during the
relevant period.
15. On procedure, the Petitioner contends that the communications of the
University, which form the foundation of the charge, were not proved
through a competent witness and were not subjected to cross-examination.
The appointment and authority of the Enquiry Officer were not properly
communicated, and documents sought for her defence were not supplied.
There was an unexplained delay between the show cause notice dated 18 th
December, 2014 and the charge memorandum dated 14th March, 2016. The
Tribunal’s appreciation of the record is stated to be perverse as it overlooks
material defence evidence, including testimony from representatives of
Respondent No. 5. Reliance is placed on Ajmer Singh v. Director of
1
2023 SCC OnLine Del 4348.
W.P.(C) 2701/2026 Page 10 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:51:35
Education2, wherein it was held that disciplinary findings based upon
unproved documents and without proper opportunity to test the material
relied upon would be unsustainable in law.
16. On the question of penalty, the Petitioner submits that removal from
service is unduly harsh. The dispute is characterised as turning on the legal
status of the diploma course run by Respondent No. 5 and documentation
issued therefrom. Even assuming some irregularity, the circumstances did
not warrant the severest civil consequence of removal.
17. The Respondents, on the other hand, support the impugned order.
They contend that the Petitioner’s appointment was founded upon a
qualification which the University categorically disowned, and that the
Petitioner failed to rebut that position. The Petitioner was afforded full
opportunity in the enquiry; she cross-examined the management witness, led
defence evidence, and submitted representations at every stage. Thus, the
findings are based on material on record and do not suffer from perversity,
and writ jurisdiction cannot be converted into a re-appreciation of evidence
or a re-trial on facts.
Analysis
Scope of judicial review
18. The contours of judicial review in disciplinary matters are well
settled. Interference is justified where the enquiry is vitiated by breach of
natural justice, patent procedural illegality causing prejudice, findings based
on no evidence, or perversity of the kind that no reasonable person could
reach on the record. The Court does not reweigh evidence or substitute its
own view on factual sufficiency merely because another view may be
2
2024 DHC 9269.
W.P.(C) 2701/2026 Page 11 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:51:35
possible.3
19. In a domestic enquiry, the strict rules of evidence under the Evidence
Act do not apply. The enquiry must still be fair, and the material relied upon
must have a reasonable nexus to the charge, but proof is tested on
preponderance of probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.4
Whether the Petitioner can re-open the Rule 118 challenge
20. The Petitioner’s foundational challenge to initiation under Rule 118
has already been adjudicated by this Court in W.P.(C) 2854/2016 by order
dated 5th December, 2016, reproduced in extenso in the earlier part of this
order. The order examined minutes of the meeting dated 12th March, 2016
and returned a categorical finding that the constituents contemplated by Rule
118 were present and that the action could not be faulted on that ground.
21. The subsequent withdrawal of LPA No. 705/2016 does not dilute the
binding effect of the said order. The liberty recorded on 14th November,
2017 cannot be read as a licence to re-agitate an issue already conclusively
determined between the same parties on the same record. At the highest, the
Petitioner could assail the conduct of the enquiry or the legality of the
penalty imposed thereafter. The initiation of proceedings under Rule 118,
having been upheld, cannot now be reopened.
Natural justice and the complaint of “unproved” University letter
22. Considerable emphasis was laid on the submission that the letters of
the University dated 13th October, 2014 and subsequent communications
were not proved through a witness from the University and therefore could
not be treated as evidence.
3
See: Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612.
4
See also: Union of India and Ors. v. Dalbir Singh 2021 SCC OnLine 768.
W.P.(C) 2701/2026 Page 12 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:51:35
23. The submission proceeds on an erroneous premise. First, domestic
enquiries are not bound by the formal proof requirements applicable to civil
or criminal trials. The enquiry is guided by principles of fairness, not by
technical rules of admissibility. Second, the Petitioner was not without
remedy. If her case was that the University’s communication was incorrect
or based on a misunderstanding regarding the recognition status of
Respondent No. 5 during 2002-03, it was open to her to summon a
competent official of the University or to produce primary material from
University records to establish her enrolment and issuance of the diploma
within the recognised framework.
24. Against the University’s categorical position, the material relied upon
by the Petitioner consists essentially of affirmations from Respondent No. 5.
The University has stated in clear terms that the Petitioner was not enrolled
for the diploma course and that the degree certificate and mark statement
were not issued by it. A verification emanating from the
statutory/recognising University regarding enrolment and issuance cannot be
equated with an affirmation from the institute whose documents are under
scrutiny. The Enquiry Officer and the Tribunal were therefore justified in
treating the University’s verification as decisive on the central factual issue.
That approach cannot be characterised as irrational or perverse.
25. The Petitioner’s attempt to negate this conclusion by invoking
‘recognition/affiliation’ of the institute does not advance her case. Even
assuming Respondent No. 5 enjoyed recognition for certain academic years,
recognition in the abstract does not establish the Petitioner’s enrolment in
the relevant session, nor does it validate the particular diploma and mark
statement produced at the time of appointment. Recognition determines the
W.P.(C) 2701/2026 Page 13 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:51:35
institutional status; it does not, by itself, prove that a specific candidate was
admitted, examined and issued a credential in the manner represented. The
enquiry and the Tribunal addressed the narrower and determinative question:
whether the Petitioner’s enrolment and the issuance of her diploma/mark
statement were borne out from the University record. The finding returned is
in the negative. Once supported by the University’s verification, post-facto
affirmations from the institute cannot, by bare assertion, displace that
conclusion.
26. The reliance placed on Ajmer Singh is misplaced. That decision
turned on its own facts, founded on serious procedural infirmities and a
mechanical reliance on material without affording meaningful opportunity to
the delinquent. In the present case, the Petitioner participated in the enquiry,
cross-examined the management witness, led defence evidence including
witnesses from Respondent No. 5, and submitted detailed representations.
The Tribunal has independently examined the record and upheld the
findings.
Alleged non-supply of documents
27. The Petitioner asserts that she sought 14 documents by letter dated
17th March, 2016 and that the same were not supplied. Non-supply of
documents does not automatically vitiate an enquiry. The Court must
examine whether the documents were relevant, whether they were relied
upon against the delinquent, and whether non-supply caused demonstrable
prejudice.
28. The Tribunal has recorded that the Petitioner was afforded adequate
opportunity to defend herself. She examined defence witnesses and
contested the management’s material. In the absence of specific prejudice
W.P.(C) 2701/2026 Page 14 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:51:35
shown to have resulted from non-supply, this Court would not interfere in
writ jurisdiction with the Tribunal’s factual assessment.
Prior approval for major penalty
29. The Petitioner’s reliance on Sunil Kumar Agarwal is on the principle
that Section 8(2) of the DSE Act mandates prior approval of the DoE before
imposition of dismissal or removal. That proposition is not in dispute.
30. The issue, however, is factual: whether such approval was obtained
prior to imposition of the penalty. The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis
that the statutory requirement stood complied with. The Petitioner has not
placed material before this Court to demonstrate that the penalty order
preceded the grant of approval. In the absence of a clear record dislodging
the Tribunal’s finding, this Court cannot presume non-compliance.
Question of Delay
31. The show cause notice is dated 18th December, 2014 and the charge
memorandum 14th March, 2016. The intervening period involved
verification by the University, correspondence, and reference to the
Directorate of Education. In service jurisprudence, delay is assessed not
merely by chronology, but by prejudice. The timeline in the present case
cannot be termed inordinate so as to vitiate the proceedings, particularly
when the Petitioner continued in service and has not demonstrated how the
delay impaired her defence.
Findings on fraud and proportionality of penalty
32. The charge pertains to the eligibility at the stage of appointment.
Where an appointment is obtained by misrepresentation or by reliance upon
a qualification that is not borne out by the verifying authority’s records, the
misconduct goes to the root of entry into service.
W.P.(C) 2701/2026 Page 15 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:51:35
33. Once the Enquiry Officer’s conclusion that the qualification, as
represented, was not supported by the University record is sustained, the
penalty of removal cannot be characterised as disproportionate. In such
matters, the issue is not merely financial but institutional integrity. A school
is entitled to insist that its teachers possess qualifications that are genuine
and verifiable.
34. The attempt to re-characterise the dispute as one concerning the
semantic distinction between “diploma” and “degree”, or between
recognition and issuance, does not dilute the finding of misconduct.
Conclusion
35. The impugned order of the Tribunal does not disclose perversity,
jurisdictional error, or breach of principles of natural justice warranting
interference under Article 226.
36. The writ petition is dismissed, along with any pending application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
FEBRUARY 26, 2026/nk
W.P.(C) 2701/2026 Page 16 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:51:35
