1) under the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, the Management of any school has to constitute a disciplinary committee. Rule 118 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 reads as under:-

"Disciplinary authorities in respect of employees The disciplinary committee in respect of every recognised private school, whether aided or not, shall consist of_

(i) the chairman of the managing committee of the school;

(ii) the manager of the school;

(iii) a nominee of the Director, in the case of an aided school, or a nominee of the appropriate authority, in the case of an unaided school;

(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."

2) the disciplinary committee should appoint inquiry officer and not authorise chairman to appoint IO

3). Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalty. Under Rule 120(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, no order imposing major penalty could be passed by the disciplinary authority, except after the receipt of the approval of the Director of Education. Therefore, under the Scheme of the Act and the Rules, the Director of Education is given the power to consider the propriety of the order proposed by the Disciplinary Committee of a school. The Disciplinary Committee is also constituted with the approval of the Director of Education

The disciplinary committee should not proceed in absence of nominee of education department and the chairman

2) both are required to be members of the disciplinary committee

3) the Directorate of Education is bound to give instructions to the management of the school that while constituting the disciplinary committee under Rule 118 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, it has to approach the Director of Education whether the constitution of disciplinary committee would conform to the Fundamental Principles of natural justice, including the likelihood of there being any bias being alleged against the members of the committee and in such an event, an officer of the department has to hold the inquiry so that the teacher concerned is fully confident that justice is done to her.

1) nominee of director of education should be appointed and then meeting of disciplinary committee should be held

2) The Supreme Court, in "Shri Rattan Lal Sharma Vs. Managing Committee, Dr.Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School & Others", , clearly ruled, "the court will have to judge the matter as a reasonable man would judge any matter in the conduct of his own business. The question, whether there was a real likelihood of a bias, depends not upon what actually was done but upon what appears to be done". The Supreme Court held that the test of bias is, "whether a reasonable intelligent man, fully apprised of all the circumstances, would feel serious apprehension of bias". The Supreme Court further held that the test is not whether in fact a bias has affected the judgment, the test always is, and must be, whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable to a member of the Tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the Tribunal. It is in this sense that it is often said that justice must not only be done but also appear to be done. The Supreme Court ruled that the Disciplinary Committee had acted illegally in conducting the proceedings. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances, the order of removal passed by the petitioner in the instant case was rightly set aside by the Tribunal. But what follows is not what the Tribunal has done. It is here court has to have a hang of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court required to be adumbrated.

There was a time when the employer was virtually free to hire and fire

the employees. Over a period of time, this common law notion has gone.

Today an employer can inflict punishment on an employee only after following

some statutory provisions depending upon the nature of the organisation.

The term Disciplinary Authorities refers to such authorities who have been

entrusted with powers to impose any penalty on the employees. In respect of

the organizations falling under the purview of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, the

term Disciplinary Authority is defined in Rule 2 (g) of the CCA Rules

Disciplinary authority is required to discharge the following functions:

(a) Examination of the complaints received against the employees

(b) Deciding as to who is to be appointed as the investigating authority

(c) Taking a view as to whether there is any need to keep the delinquent

employee under suspension

(d) Taking a view on the preliminary investigation report and deciding about

the future course of action thereon, such as warning, training, counseling,

initiation of major or minor penalty proceeding, prosecution, discharge

simpliciter, etc.

Issue of charge sheet where necessary - Rule 14(3)

Appointment of Inquiry Authority and Presenting Officer, where necessary

Deciding as to whether the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiring

Authority is acceptable and to record reasons for disagreement if any –

Rule 15(2)

These are the various functions of the disciplinary authority besides many other functions.

it is related to delhi education act

pl provide some citation against it if there are

and how to proceed against this point

You dont require a citation for the provision of law.

The law is very clear hence you can refer to the relevant law on the topic.

can the discplinary committee proceed with the meetings in the absence of chairman managing committee and nominee of education department

Firstly, it must be remembered that the Disciplinary authority is determined

with reference to the employee proceeded against. Schedule to the Rules

1965 lay down the details of the disciplinary authorities in respect of various

grade of employees in different services in the Government. The President,

the Appointing Authority, the Authority specified in the Schedule of the Rules

(to the extent specified therein) or by any other authority empowered in this

behalf by any general or special order of the President may impose any of the

Penalties specified in Rule 11.

Appointing Authority as mentioned in the Schedule must be understood with

reference to rule 2 (a) of the Rules. The question as to who is the appropriate

disciplinary authority must be raised and answered not only while issuing

charge sheet but also at the time of imposing penalty because there might

have been some change in the situation due to delegation of powers, etc. in

the organization.

can the school ask for the nominee of the director of education after holding the meeting of discplinary comittee?

The school authorities should first eek permission from the district education authorities on this subject and then with the permission granted, they may proceed with the situation as per prevailing law on the subject.

It can. The chairman can be authorized by a resolution of the disciplinary committee to appoint an inquiry officer, but his authority can be impeached if it can be proved that he has an interest in the outcome of the inquiry. The power of appointment is to be exercised keeping in mind the principles of natural justice,