W.P.(C) 9921/2026 Page 1 of 7 $~96 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9921/2026, CM APPL. 46174-46175/2026 KUNWAR PRAMOD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Mrs. Manika V. Aggarwal, Mr. Vikrant Chawla, Mr. Mayank Chauhan and Mr. Prabhau Pachauri, Advocates. versus SHIKSHA BHARTI GLOBAL SCHOOL AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pramod Gupta, Ms. Yogita and Ms. Riya Khandelwal, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, CGSC with Mr. Adhiraj Singh, GP with Ms. Nandini Aggarwal, Advocate for R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 22.07.2026 1. The Petitioner, who is working as an Administrative Officer (Level-9) in Respondent No. 1 School, has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that, despite there being neither any order of suspension nor termination, he has been prevented from entering the School premises and discharging his duties. The Petitioner, inter alia, seeks a direction to Respondent No. 1 to permit him to resume his duties 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 24/07/2026 at 12:30:54 W.P.(C) 9921/2026 Page 2 of 7 with all consequential benefits and also seeks a direction to Respondent No. 2-Directorate of Education to inquire into his complaint dated 2nd July, 2026 alleging financial irregularities in the affairs of the School. 2. The Petitioner states that he was appointed as an Office Superintendent in Respondent No. 1 School on 1st January, 2014 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Administrative Officer (Level-9) pursuant to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 28th June, 2023. According to the Petitioner, while discharging his duties, he noticed certain financial irregularities in the affairs of the School, including illegal collection of donations for admissions, award of contracts without following the prescribed procedure, and coercion of teachers to return a portion of their salaries in cash. It is his case that he objected to such practices and also raised concerns regarding the termination of certain contractual teachers, which resulted in hostility on the part of the School management towards him. 3. The Petitioner further alleges that on 23rd June, 2026, he was orally instructed by the School Manager not to report for duty from the following day. According to him, when he reported for duty on 24th June, 2026, he was prevented from entering the School premises by the security staff acting under the instructions of the School Manager, despite there being no order placing him under suspension or terminating his services. The Petitioner claims that he immediately contacted the police through the PCR helpline and thereafter issued a legal notice dated 27th June, 2026 seeking restoration of his services. He also submitted a representation dated 2nd July, 2026 to the Directorate of Education and the School, requesting restoration to duty and an inquiry into the alleged financial irregularities. 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 24/07/2026 at 12:30:54 W.P.(C) 9921/2026 Page 3 of 7 4. The Petitioner further states that, instead of permitting him to resume his duties, Respondent No. 1 issued a show cause notice dated 7th July, 2026 alleging that the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 28th June, 2023 had never taken place and that the Petitioner had wrongly received enhanced pay consequent upon his promotion. The Petitioner claims to have submitted a detailed reply to the said show cause notice on 10th July, 2026, asserting that the allegations were false and retaliatory in nature and enclosing the promotion order issued pursuant to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. 5. Before examining the rival submissions, this Court has put a specific query to Mr. Pramod Gupta, counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 School, as to whether any order terminating the services of the Petitioner has been passed. On instructions, Mr. Gupta answers the query in the negative. Upon a further query as to whether the Petitioner has been placed under suspension, Mr. Gupta, again states that no order of suspension has been passed. 6. Mr. Gupta nevertheless objects to the maintainability of the present petition. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shashi Gaur v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.,1 he submits that the Petitioner has himself pleaded that the impugned action amounts to a de facto termination of his services and, therefore, the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 19732 stands attracted. 7. The aforesaid objection, however, is self-defeating. The ratio in 1 (2001) 10 SCC 445 2 “DSE Act” 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 24/07/2026 at 12:30:54 W.P.(C) 9921/2026 Page 4 of 7 Shashi Gaur proceeds on the availability of the statutory appellate remedy against an order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. In the present case, however, Respondent No. 1 has categorically stated that neither any order of termination nor any order of suspension has been passed. Having taken such a stand, Respondent No. 1 cannot simultaneously contend that the Petitioner should avail of the appellate remedy under Section 8(3), which necessarily presupposes the existence of an appealable order. The Petitioner’s description of the impugned action as a de facto termination cannot, in the absence of any such order, compel him to pursue the statutory remedy. 8. Mr. Gupta further submits that although no order of suspension or termination has been passed, the School is in the process of taking action against the Petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and, pending such action, the management is entitled to deny the Petitioner entry into the School premises. He further submits that no prejudice is being caused to the Petitioner, as he continues to receive his salary despite not attending the School. It is also submitted that an Office Order dated 21st July, 2026 has been issued directing recovery of an alleged excess payment of ₹4,73,323/- from the Petitioner. 9. The issue relating to the alleged excess payment and recovery thereof is not the subject matter of the present proceedings and, therefore, this Court is not required to examine the same. The question which falls for consideration is whether a recognised private school, which is required to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the DSE Act and the Rules framed thereunder while placing an employee under suspension or terminating his services, can nevertheless deny such employee entry into the 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 24/07/2026 at 12:30:54 W.P.(C) 9921/2026 Page 5 of 7 school premises and prevent him from discharging his duties merely on the ground that disciplinary action is contemplated or proposed. In the opinion of this Court, the answer must be in the negative. 10. The DSE Act is a complete code governing the conditions of service of employees of recognised private schools. The Act and the Rules contemplate the manner in which disciplinary action may be taken against an employee, including suspension and termination, and the safeguards attendant thereto. 11. Admittedly, in the present case, Respondent No. 1 has neither passed an order of suspension nor an order terminating the services of the Petitioner. In the absence of any such order, the Petitioner continues to hold the post of Administrative Officer and there is no statutory basis for preventing him from discharging the duties attached to the said post. 12. The attempt of Respondent No. 1 to justify its action on the ground that the prevailing circumstances did not permit the Petitioner to be allowed entry into the School premises also cannot be accepted. The DSE Act itself contemplates situations requiring immediate intervention. Section 8(4) expressly empowers the management, in an appropriate case, to place an employee under immediate suspension, subject to the statutory safeguards prescribed therein. If, according to Respondent No. 1, the circumstances warranted the Petitioner’s immediate exclusion from the workplace, it was incumbent upon the management to resort to the statutory mechanism provided by the Act rather than adopt an extra-statutory course of simply denying him entry. 13. The submission that no prejudice is caused to the Petitioner as he continues to receive his salary also cannot be accepted. The legality of the 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 24/07/2026 at 12:30:54 W.P.(C) 9921/2026 Page 6 of 7 Respondent’s action cannot be tested merely on the touchstone of monetary loss. An employee who continues in service is entitled to discharge the functions of the office held by him unless lawfully restrained from doing so in accordance with the statutory procedure. 14. Accepting the submission of Respondent No. 1 would amount to recognising a mode of excluding an employee from service which the statute does not contemplate. The management cannot be permitted to achieve, by denying access to the workplace, what it has not chosen to do by following the procedure prescribed under the DSE Act. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that Respondent No. 1 cannot prevent the Petitioner from entering the School premises and discharging the duties attached to his post. If Respondent No. 1 considers it necessary to initiate disciplinary action against the Petitioner, it shall be at liberty to do so strictly in accordance with the provisions of the DSE Act and the Rules framed thereunder. However, till such time as an order of suspension or termination is passed in accordance with law, the Petitioner cannot be denied entry into the School premises or prevented from discharging the duties attached to his post. 16. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1 is directed to permit the Petitioner to resume his duties as Administrative Officer forthwith. It is made clear that this direction shall not preclude Respondent No. 1 from initiating or continuing disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised. 17. Insofar as the Petitioner’s prayer seeking a direction to the Directorate of Education to inquire into the allegations of financial irregularities is concerned, Respondent No. 2 shall examine the Petitioner’s representation 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 24/07/2026 at 12:30:54 W.P.(C) 9921/2026 Page 7 of 7 dated 2nd July, 2026 and take an appropriate decision thereon, in accordance with law. 18. It is further clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the allegations levelled by either party, including those forming the subject matter of the show cause notice dated 7th July, 2026, the Office Order dated 21st July, 2026, and the Petitioner’s complaint dated 2nd July, 2026. All rights and contentions of the parties in this regard are kept open. 19. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms along with all pending applications. SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 22, 2026 nk 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 24/07/2026 at 12:30:54