The Delhi High Court has recently affirmed a compensation ruling of Rs 15 lakh in favor of a former school clerk, Kritendra Sharma, who was terminated from his position in 1995 without undergoing a departmental inquiry. He was later acquitted in a criminal case involving forgery. The court found that Sharma’s dismissal contravened the principles of natural justice and due process.
This decision came from a division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, who were reviewing cross-appeals from Sharma and the Directorate of Education (DoE) regarding a prior ruling by a single judge that awarded him the compensation.
The court’s order dated May 29 stated, “We hold that the impugned judgment, insofar as it upholds the order of the learned tribunal setting aside the dismissal order and modifies the relief by awarding compensation of Rs 15,00,000 together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum until actual payment, in lieu of reinstatement, back-wages, and on account of the mental agony and trauma suffered by the Appellant in LPA No. 283/2022, warrants no interference.”
The High Court emphasized that the school had failed to prove its allegations that Sharma had submitted counterfeit educational certificates, which were the basis for his dismissal.
Sharma was appointed as an upper division clerk on probation for one year starting July 31, 1993, and officially joined on August 3, 1993. The school requested that he present the original documents for his 10th and 12th grade certificates, as well as his graduation degree. However, he did not provide these originals. Subsequently, the school claimed Sharma was absent from January 12, 1995, without permission. They issued several memos on January 16 and February 1, 1995, requesting that he return to work and submit the required documents.
Sharma was ultimately dismissed without a departmental inquiry, and on February 14, 1995, an FIR was filed against him for cheating and forgery. He was arrested three days later but was released on bail shortly thereafter.
In response to his dismissal, Sharma appealed to the Delhi School Tribunal, which initially rejected his case as being filed too late. However, after appealing to the Delhi High Court, the court overturned the tribunal’s decision on January 28, 2010, and ordered a fresh review of the case.
On May 13, 2011, the tribunal ruled that Sharma’s dismissal was unlawful, ordering his reinstatement. During the course of the legal proceedings, the DoE took over the management of the school in July 2017 due to issues of mismanagement, and it was allowed to represent the school in the ongoing legal matters.
Sharma was eventually acquitted of the criminal charges when the court determined that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required to substantiate the forgery claims.
A single judge of the Delhi High Court later confirmed that Sharma’s dismissal was illegal but opted to substitute reinstatement with a compensation package of Rs 15 lakh, which included Rs 5 lakh for lost wages and Rs 10 lakh for the mental distress, stigma, and prolonged legal battles he endured.
Both Sharma and the DoE filed appeals against this ruling in the Delhi High Court. During the hearings, Sharma’s attorney, Anuj Dhir, contended that the single judge erred in not reinstating Sharma after declaring the dismissal unlawful. Dhir asserted that the emotional suffering experienced by Sharma extended beyond himself to his family, and that monetary compensation could not adequately address their hardship.
On the other hand, the DoE’s legal representative argued that Sharma’s employment was void from the start due to the use of falsified documents to secure his position, and therefore, he should not be entitled to the protections offered under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. The DoE also claimed that Sharma had been given multiple opportunities to respond to various memos and notices but had failed to do so. Furthermore, they pointed out that Sharma waited eight years after his dismissal to challenge the decision.
Richa Sahay serves as a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, focusing on demystifying the intricacies of the Indian judicial system. With a background in law, she utilizes her advanced education to connect complex court rulings with public understanding, ensuring that readers remain informed about the dynamic legal landscape.
