DEVINDER GUPTA ( 1 ) PLAINTIFF is an unaided privately managed recognized senior secondary school. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 are teachers in the subjects of Mathematics, Physics and Biology respectively. On 26. 12. 1994, a suit was filed by the plaintiffs claiming a decree that the plaintiffs act in suspending defendants 3, 4 and 5 through letter dated 30. 11. 1994 be declared to be deemed to have been approved by the Director of Education and will remain in force till the disciplinary proceedings, contemplated in the show cause notice dated 30. 11. 1994 are concluded. Decree for injunction has also been prayed against defendants 1 and 2 not to proceed further with the letter dated 6. 12. 1994 and against defendants 3, 4 and 5 restraining them from entering school premises and causing any interference in the affairs of the school. ( 2 ) SUIT is founded on the allegations that due to gross misconduct, inefficient, incompetent, non co-operative, rude conduct and defamatory work of defendants 3. 4 and 5, the Managing Committee of the School decided that they be removed from their respective services, in accordance with the principles of law. As the continuance of defendants 3, 4 and 5 was likely to cause indiscipline and nuisance in day-to-day functioning of the School, accordingly on 30. 11. 1994, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the act ) and the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the rules ), a resolution was passed by the Managing Committee to suspend with immediate effect defendants 3, 4 and 5. Simultaneously, Manager of the School was directed to take necessary action to probe into the charges of misconduct etc. for which show cause notice was also served on defendants 3, 4 and 5. Pending inquiry, defendants 3. 4 and 5 were asked not to enter the School premises without prior permission of the Principle. The said defendants refused to receive the suspension letter and started making demonstrations and resorted to stage dharnas, holding meetings, causing loss and damage to the School property and further started creating interference in day-to-day s functioning of the School. This necessitated in the plaintiffs filing a suit against the said defendants for permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of Shri P. K. Bhasin, Additional District Judge, Delhi, who on 5. 12. This necessitated in the plaintiffs filing a suit against the said defendants for permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of Shri P. K. Bhasin, Additional District Judge, Delhi, who on 5. 12. 1994 by way of an ad-interim order of injunction restrained them from holding any demonstration or Dharna within a distance of 100 metres from the boundary of the School. It is alleged that cause of action arose to the plaintiffs to file the instant suit for claiming the aforementioned reliefs when on 14. 12. 1994 a letter dated 6. 12. 1994 was received from the Director of Education calling upon the plaintiffs to furnish various information. It is alleged that Director of Education did not decline to accord approval to the Managing Committee s resolution before the expiry of the statutory period of 15 day and since no decision had been taken by the Director of Education within the stutatory period declining to grant the approval, the same would be deemed to have accorded and, thus, there was no necessity to famish the requisite details called for in the letter dated 6. 12. 1994. Moreover the details as sought for were not necessary since, according to the plaintiffs,the Director of Education while taking decision to accord approval to the decision of the Managing Committee is only concerned to see whether such a decision of the Managing Committee to suspend a teacher is not malafide and arbitrary. Relevant material had already been submitted by the plaintiffs to the Director of Education, who had not, within the requisite period taken any decision, therefore, approval would be deemed to have been accorded. According to the plaintiffs, despite order of injunction passed by the Court of Shri P. K. Bhasin, Additional District Judge, defendants 3, 4 and 5 were collecting tuition fees from students under the receipt of Parents Teacher s Association (for short pta ), were not allowing the Management and the Accountant to collect tuition fees, due to which Management was not in a position to disburse salaries to teachers and non-teaching staff. Defendants 3,4 and 5 had also locked the principal s room, did not permit the Management to conduct half-yearly examinations. Defendants 3,4 and 5 had been roaming in the School premises and were threatening the teachers and non-teaching staff that whoever would disobey their word, would have to face dire consequences. Defendants 3,4 and 5 had also locked the principal s room, did not permit the Management to conduct half-yearly examinations. Defendants 3,4 and 5 had been roaming in the School premises and were threatening the teachers and non-teaching staff that whoever would disobey their word, would have to face dire consequences. Thus, according to the plaintiffs, defendants 3, 4 and 5 were not allowing the Management to run the School at all. In this background the aforementioned reliefs were claimed. ( 3 ) ALONG with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. On 3. 1. 1995 an exparte order of injunction was passed restraining defendants 3, 4 and 5 from entering the School premises and were also restrained from collecting any tuition fees from students or creating any hindrance in day-to-day s functioning of the School. ( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 3, 4 and 5 filed IA 540/95 under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code seeking vacation of the ex parte order of injunction alleging that there is no properly constituted Managing Committee. All the functions of the Managing Committee were usurped by one Shri S. N. Chaturvedi who has been acting as the sole proprietor of the School. For the last thirteen years Shri Chaturvedi continued to be the Chairman of so-called one man Managing Committee. During the last thirteen years, no teacher or employee was ever given appointment letter. Contract of service or appointment letter, as envisaged in Section 15 of the Act has also not been given. Proper salaries are not being paid. School is not functioning in accordance with law and is being run in a dictatorial manner. In fact it was converted into a personal and private affair of Shri Chaturvedi. Shri Chaturvedi, his son and daughter were not interested in the welfare of the School and the children were concerned and have been misappropriating the funds of the School for their unlawful personal gains. In order to improve the functioning of the School and to realize full potential of teachers and students some parents approached the three teachers and it was thought appropriate to form PTA. Initially in order to avoid any unsavoury situation, because of hostile attitude of Shri Chaturvedi, decision to form Association was postponed. In order to improve the functioning of the School and to realize full potential of teachers and students some parents approached the three teachers and it was thought appropriate to form PTA. Initially in order to avoid any unsavoury situation, because of hostile attitude of Shri Chaturvedi, decision to form Association was postponed. When in July, 1994, the School re-opened, situation of the school was as volatile as it was before closure. In order to save the School from further deterioration, PTA was formed. To redress their grievances teachers approached Legal and Advice and a letter was sent to Shri Chaturvedi. No reply was received. Again a memorandum was sent on 28. 7. 1994. When no reply was received, a reminder dated 11. 10. 1994 was sent to the Director of Education. It was during this period that one Surjit Singh was brought in as the Manager of the School. This was a dramatic change. Whereafter situation deteriorated further and ultimately in order to suppress the demands of teachers and to deprive them of their legitimate dues, a show cause notice was served upon defendants 3,4 and 5. Fifteen days time was given to file-reply to show cause. They were also suspended on the same day. In the meanwhile a suit was filed by the plaintiffs in which order of injunction was obtained against them not to hold demonstration within 100 mertres from the boundary of the School. All these acts, according to the defendants 3,4 and 5, have been to harass and humiliate them and to teach a lesson to them who are senior teachers, who have been demanding their legitimate dues to which they were entitled. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 have prayed that there is absolutely no cause for granting any relief to the plaintiffs and there is no question of there being any deeming approval of suspension. Suit according to the defendants is barred and is not maintainable. ( 5 ) APPLICATION was pending. Arguments were heard and order reserved. At that stage the plaintiffs sought amendment to the suit by moving IA 1162/95 praying that after filing of the suit on 11. 1. 1995 a letter had been sent by the Director of Education, without considering its reply dated 2. 11. 1995, declining to approve the act of the management to suspend defendants 3, 4 and 5. At that stage the plaintiffs sought amendment to the suit by moving IA 1162/95 praying that after filing of the suit on 11. 1. 1995 a letter had been sent by the Director of Education, without considering its reply dated 2. 11. 1995, declining to approve the act of the management to suspend defendants 3, 4 and 5. The plaintiffs sought to challenge this order to be without jurisdiction. Amendment was allowed after notice to defendants. Simultaneously the plaintiffs also filed IA 1163/95 praying for interim relief that order dated 11. 1. 1995 be stayed till disposal of the suit. In the light of the aforementioned development parties were heard. ( 6 ) BEFORE the order could be announced, my attention has now been drawn by defendants 3 to 5 to a communication addressed by the plaintiffs to the said defendants dated 25. 11. 1995 to the effect that Managing Committee of the School through its resolution dated 24. 11. 1995 has unanimously accepted the report and recommendations ofthe Disciplinary Proceedings Committee and decided to dismiss defendants 3/4 and 5 from service and a requisition to that effect has also been sent to the Director of Education for his approval. ( 7 ) FROM the narration of the facts it may be noticed that on 30. 11. 1994 suspension letters were handed over to defendants 3, 4 and 5. Suspension letters state that the Managing Committee of the School through its resolution dated 30. 11. 1994, in exercise of powers under Section 8 and Sub Rule 4 has unanimously concluded to contemplate disciplinary proceedings under Rule 115 Sub Clauses (e) and (f) of the Act and in the meanwhile to suspend them from service, with immediate effect. Defendants were asked to receive show cause notices attached to the letters of suspension and to appear before the Disciplinary Authority. Defendants were asked to receive show cause notices attached to the letters of suspension and to appear before the Disciplinary Authority. ( 8 ) THE stress of the arguments on behalf of counsel for the plaintiffs has been that the Managing Committee under Clause 4 of Section 8 of the Act is competent to suspend an employee with immediate effect and without the prior approval of the Director, if it is satisfied that such immediate suspension is necessary by reason of the gross misconduct within the meaning of code of conduct prescribed under Section 2 of the Act and that immediate suspension shall not remain in force for more than a period of fifteen days from the date of suspension unless it has been communicated to the Director and approved by him before the expiry of the said period. According to the submissions made, on 30. 11. 1994 the Director of Education was communicated with the decision of the Managing Committee suspending defendants 3 to 5 with immediate effect, therefore, it was necessary for the Director of Education to communicate to the plaintiffs his disapproval within a period of fifteen days and since it was not done there will be a deemed approval to the act of the plaintiffs. The other submission has been that on 6. 12. 1994, the Director of Education had asked for certain information. Such information was not at all necessary or required to be furnished. Power of the Director of Education was limited to see whether the order of suspension was not arbitrary and malafide for which relevant material had already been supplied to the Director of Education. To these submissions made on behalf of the plaintiffs, arguments of defendants have been that the Director of Education, when approached to accord approval will be within his right to ask for such further information as may be deemed necessary and the information sought for from the plaintiffs in the letter dated 6. 12. 1994 was absolutely necessary. The Director of Education had to form an opinion on the legality or validity of the order of suspension. It was his prerogative to grant approval or not to grant approval. Director of Education through letter dated 6. 12. 1994 rightly called for relevant and further information, which the plaintiffs were duty bound to supply and since the same was not supplied, on 11. 1. It was his prerogative to grant approval or not to grant approval. Director of Education through letter dated 6. 12. 1994 rightly called for relevant and further information, which the plaintiffs were duty bound to supply and since the same was not supplied, on 11. 1. 1995 decision was rightly taken by the Director declining to grant approval. ( 9 ) HAVING considered the submissions made, 1 am of the view that at this stage and while deciding application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, it w ill not now be necessary, in view of the changed circumstances, to decide the point in controversy. At present the question to be decided would be as to whether the ex parte order of injunction granted deserves or does not deserve to be confirmed and whether any other or further order deserves to be passed with respect to letter dated 6. 12. 1994 and 11. 1. 1995. Decision on the legality or validity of the order of suspension at this stage, when suspension was to last only during the continuance of disciplinary proceedings, which according to the plaintiffs has since concluded, need not be decided for more than one reason. Any decision while deciding interlocutory application has to be of a prima facie nature and tentative. Period of suspension by lapse of time has come to an end and will be subject to the final order if and when passed, dependant upon the decision of the Director of Education. ( 10 ) AS noticed above, on 25. 11. 1995, on conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry, the report of the disciplinary committee has been accepted by the Managing Committee who has now taken a decision to dismiss defendants 3, 4 and 5 from service. Such a decision to dismiss defendants 3, 4 and 5 from service cannot take effect on its own strength. Sub section (2) of Section 8 provides that no employee of a recognised private school shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank, nor his services shall otherwise be terminated except with the prior approval of the Director. Rule 120 of the Rules prescribes the procedure to be followed for imposing major penalty. It is a case in which the decision of Managing Committee will require the approval of the Director of Education. Rule 120 of the Rules prescribes the procedure to be followed for imposing major penalty. It is a case in which the decision of Managing Committee will require the approval of the Director of Education. Such matter is presently not the subject matter of issue, for which pleadings are also not before the court. Scope of the suit is also not such, which will require any determination of such a question. The question at this stage is as to whether the ex parte order of injunction deserves to be continued or not. ( 11 ) WITHOUT going into the merits of the case and without going into the question whether plaintiffs have been right in suspending defendants 3, 4 and 5 or not, in view of the fact that the enquiry which was contemplated against defendants 3, 4 and 5 has come to an end, in view of the circumstances, it will not be appropriate at this stage to vacate the order of injunction, since it will not be within the right of defendants 3, 4 and 5 to interfere or meddle with the affairs of the School. Defendants otherwise have not pleaded that they have a right to collect fees from students. In case ultimately approval is accorded by the Director of Education to the decision of Managing Committee, defendants 3, 4 and 5 w ill be within their right to challenge the said order of dismissal from service under Section 11 of the Act and in case approval is not granted by the Director, it will be open for the plaintiffs, if it is permissible, to challenge the said order in accordance with law. On non-grant of approval by the Director, defendants 3,4 and 5 will be deemed to be continuing in service of the plaintiffs. Duration of the order of suspension was only during the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Disciplinary proceedings have since concluded. Thus. there is no question at this stage to comment upon the letters dated 6. 12. 1994 and 11. 1. 1995, ( 12 ) IN view of the above, the applications are disposed of by confirming the order passed on 3. 1. Disciplinary proceedings have since concluded. Thus. there is no question at this stage to comment upon the letters dated 6. 12. 1994 and 11. 1. 1995, ( 12 ) IN view of the above, the applications are disposed of by confirming the order passed on 3. 1. 1995 with the observations that it w ill be open for the parties to apply for variation of the order, after a decision is taken by the Director of Education on the recommendation of the plaintiffs to dismiss the contesting defendants, viz. . defendants 3. 4 and 5. ( 13 ) SUIT 2928/94 List before appropriate bench on January 29, 1996 for further directions.