Introduction
In a significant judgment pronounced on 26th December 2025, the Delhi School Tribunal (Appeal No. 48 of 2016) ruled in favor of Ms. Alpana Kohli, a TGT (English) teacher with over 21 years of unblemished service, setting aside her termination order dated 15.10.2015. The case, decided by Sh. Satinder Kumar Gautam, Presiding Officer, stands as an important precedent for teachers’ rights, procedural fairness, and the strict application of the Delhi School Education Act & Rules (DSEA&R), 1973.
Background of the Case
Ms. Alpana Kohli, a resident of West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, was employed as a TGT (English) at S.D. Public School, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi since 25.07.1996. She was suspended vide order dated 03.10.2012, following allegations of misconduct, and subsequently removed from service on 15.10.2015 based on an inquiry report dated 04.09.2015.
The appellant challenged this termination order before the Delhi School Tribunal through Appeal No. 48/2016, represented by Mr. Sourabh Malhotra and Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocates.
Charges Framed Against the Appellant
The management framed four charges against Ms. Kohli under the charge sheet dated 23.02.2013:
Article 1 — Physical altercation with Ms. Alpa Mathur, PGT (Bio), on 01.10.2012 in the presence of a CBSE inspection team visiting the school regarding her daughter’s promotion matter.
Article 2 — Verbal abuse and threats directed at Ms. Urmila Dewan (Vice Principal) and Ms. Sunita Chadha (Head Mistress) on the same date, allegedly in the presence of CBSE officials.
Article 3 — Negligence in duties, including non-return of answer sheets of Class V and VI students despite multiple reminders, non-completion of syllabus, and absence from duties.
Article 4 — Habitual absenteeism without prior intimation or permission from school authorities.
Key Contentions of the Appellant
The appellant, through her counsel, raised three primary grounds challenging the legality of her termination:
1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice (PNJ)
The appellant’s written reply dated 14.03.2013 to the charge sheet was never considered or referred to in the inquiry report. Documents listed in Annexure III of the charge sheet were not supplied to her despite repeated requests. She was not informed of hearing dates in advance; notices were served during school recess or while she was on assigned duty. The inquiry officer proceeded ex-parte without communicating the ex-parte order to the appellant.
2. Charges Were Vague and Lacked Material Particulars
Six documents listed in Annexure III were never actually supplied to the appellant. The charges, particularly Articles 1 and 2, lacked specificity required under settled law. The suspension order dated 03.10.2012 made no reference to the alleged incidents of 01.10.2012.
3. Non-Examination of Independent and Material Witnesses
Despite 15 witnesses being cited in Annexure IV, only three were examined. Ms. Rita Sachdeva (Office Superintendent) and Ms. Uma Chopra (UDC), specifically named by MW-1 Alpa Mathur as eyewitnesses to the slapping incident, were never examined. No CBSE officials present during the alleged incident were called. The inquiry officer failed to record reasons for dropping the listed witnesses.
Respondents’ Contentions
Respondent No. 1 — Director of Education (DOE): The DOE contended that the inquiry was conducted by Respondent No. 2 school in accordance with Rules 118 and 120 of DSEA&R 1973, and that DOE had no role in the day-to-day affairs of the unaided private school. The appeal against DOE was argued to be without cause of action.
Respondent No. 2 — S.D. Public School: The school vehemently denied all contentions and argued that the appellant had voluntarily boycotted the inquiry proceedings, misbehaved with the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer, and could not benefit from her own non-cooperative conduct. The school relied on judgments including Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra (1999), BC Chaturvedi vs. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 484, and the principle that disciplinary proceedings require only preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Tribunal’s Analysis and Findings
After careful consideration of pleadings, written synopses, oral arguments, and judgments cited by both parties, the Tribunal made the following critical findings:
On Witness Examination: The Tribunal held that MW-1 Alpa Mathur’s testimony revealed the slapping incident occurred in the presence of Ms. Rita Sachdeva and Ms. Uma Chopra, yet neither was examined. Out of 15 listed witnesses, only three were brought forward, with no recorded reasons for dropping the others. MW-2 (Urmila Dewan) was only partly cross-examined and MW-3 (Sunita Chadha) was not cross-examined at all, rendering their testimonies inadmissible against the charge officer.
On Evidentiary Standards: Relying on Ram August Tewari Vs. Bindeshwari Tewari (1972 BLJR 97) and State of Punjab Vs. Deewan Chunnilal (1970) 1 SCC 479, the Tribunal observed that oral evidence must be direct and corroborated. The sole testimony of MW-1 could not be relied upon without corroboration, especially when contradictions existed in her cross-examination.
On the FIR: The FIR lodged at PS Patel Nagar was not substantiated — no medical examination was conducted, no witnesses at the scene were examined by police, and no outcome of the FIR was placed on record. The Tribunal found this significantly weakened the management’s case.
On Non-Supply of Documents: The Tribunal noted that documents listed in Annexure III were not actually supplied to the appellant, violating her right to fair defence under DSEA&R 1973 and PNJ.
On the Termination Order: Applying Rule 120(2) of DSEA&R 1973, which mandates prior DOE approval before imposing any major penalty, the Tribunal found that the termination letter dated 15.10.2015 carried no such approval. The penalty was communicated by the Manager — a person neither competent nor authorized under the rules to delegate such power. This was held to be contrary to Rule 118 and Rule 120 of DSEA&R 1973.
On Bias: Relying on Redrose Public School Vs. Reshmavati & Ors. 2019 SCC Online Delhi 10937, the Tribunal held that personal bias must be specifically pleaded with evidence. The inquiry proceedings reflected undue influence by senior management, with the inquiry officer appearing to favor the management side.
Final Order and Relief Granted
The Tribunal declared the termination order dated 15.10.2015 as illegal and set it aside.
Since the appellant had already reached the age of superannuation and her counsel had stated on 25.08.2023 that she was not interested in reinstatement due to ill health, the Tribunal ordered notional reinstatement from the date of termination till the date of superannuation.
Regarding back wages and consequential benefits for the period between termination and superannuation, the Management Committee of S.D. Public School was directed to pass a speaking order within six weeks under Rule 121 of Delhi School Education Rules 1973, with reasons, which shall be communicated to the appellant. The appellant was given liberty to pursue further legal remedies in case of surviving grievances.
Appeal No. 48/2016 was allowed and disposed off on 26th December 2025.
Key Legal Principles Affirmed
This judgment reinforces several critical legal principles in service and education law:
Principles of Natural Justice are Non-Negotiable — Even in disciplinary proceedings of private unaided schools, the principles of audi alteram partem (right to be heard) and fair procedure must be strictly followed.
Material Witnesses Cannot Be Dropped Without Reason — Failure to examine material and available witnesses, without recording reasons, vitiates the inquiry proceedings.
Sole Testimony Requires Corroboration — Uncorroborated sole witness testimony, especially when contradictory in cross-examination, cannot sustain a finding of misconduct.
Rule 120(2) DSEA&R 1973 is Mandatory — No major penalty can be imposed by a private school without prior DOE approval. Non-compliance renders the penalty order void.
Long Service Record is a Relevant Factor — An employee with 21 years of unblemished service cannot be removed on the basis of vague, fabricated, or unproven charges.
Significance of the Judgment
This judgment is a significant victory for teachers employed in private unaided schools in Delhi. It firmly establishes that school management cannot use disciplinary proceedings as a tool of harassment or victimization. The Delhi School Tribunal has affirmed that procedural safeguards under DSEA&R 1973 are not mere formalities but substantive rights of the employee. Teachers facing wrongful termination, particularly single women or financially vulnerable individuals, are entitled to the full protection of the law.
Conclusion
The case of Alpana Kohli Vs. Director of Education & S.D. Public School is a landmark ruling that strengthens the legal framework protecting teachers in Delhi’s private schools. It serves as a strong reminder to school managements that disciplinary proceedings must be conducted fairly, transparently, and in strict compliance with the Delhi School Education Act & Rules 1973. Any departure from these standards will render the proceedings illegal and invite judicial intervention.
