Bombay High Court
Gokul Rajaramji Ingle vs Union Of India, Thr. The Vice ... on 7 June, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
2625.2014WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2625 OF 2014
Gokul s/o Rajaramji Ingle
Age: years, Occu.Nil
Ex-Part KV Aurangabad Cantt.,
Ordinarily resides at HIG 54,
Mhada colony, N-2, CIDCO,
Near Vasant Dada Patil High School,
Aurangabad. ig PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] Union of India,
Through the Vice Chairman,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Shastri Bhavan Gage 6 Room 31,
C-Wing, New Delhi - 110 016.
[Copy to be served on the Standing
Counsel, High Court of Judicature
of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad]
2] The Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
[Vigilance Section],
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi.
3] The Assistant Commissioner,
Now the Deputy Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Mumbai Region-Mumbai.
IIT Campus, Powai,
Mumbai-400 076.
4] Mrs. Savita Job,
Principal,
::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2016 00:06:31 :::
2625.2014WP.odt
2
Kendriya Vidyalaya,
At Post Yevatmal,
Dist. Yevatmal,
Pin.445 001.
5] Mrs.Sunanda Pardeshi,
TGT [Hindi],
Kendriya Vidyalaya,
Aurangabad
[Resp.No.5 deleted as
per Courts order dtd.
05.01.2016] RESPONDENTS
ig ...
Mr.V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr.K.B.Chaudhari, Advocate for Respondent
Nos.2 to 4
Mr.S.B.Deshpande, ASG for Respondent No.1.
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
V.K.JADHAV,JJ.
Reserved on : 21.04.2016
Pronounced on : 07.06.2016
JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]:
This Petition takes exception to the
impugned judgment and order dated 8th May,
2013, passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Bombay Bench at Mumbai [for short
'CAT'] in Original application No.217/2013.
There is also prayer for quashing and setting
2625.2014WP.odt
aside the order of termination of the
services of the petitioner issued by the
Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan,
New Delhi. Further direction is sought to
the respondents to reinstate the petitioner
in the employment. It is further prayed to
hold and declare that Article 81 [B] of the
Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalaya, is
ultra vires to Article 14 of the constitution
of India.
2] The CAT has extensively referred the
facts of the case in the impugned judgment,
and therefore, we do not feel it necessary to
reproduce the said facts; as and when it is
necessary we will make a reference to the
relevant facts from the impugned judgment.
3] The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the service
record of the petitioner prior to alleged
incident is clean and unblemished. He was
2625.2014WP.odt
awarded 'Bal Mitra Award' by Vikrant Yuva
Manch, Parbhani, in the year 1994-1995. It
is submitted that the petitioner has been
implicated in the false offence with oblique
motive on account of groupism and castism.
An alleged enquiry has been conducted behind
the back of the petitioner, without affording
him an opportunity of being heard. The
notice given to the petitioner did not
contain the charge and material against him
so as to enable the petitioner to give
reply. An alleged statements and complaints
made by the students and parents have not
been shown to the petitioner, and he was
orally directed to submit his say to the said
complaints. An action taken against the
petitioner on the basis of news item is
arbitrary and contrary to the facts on the
record. The Principal has not appointed a
scheduled caste member on the Enquiry
Committee. Mrs. Sunanda Pardeshi has
2625.2014WP.odt
intentionally prompted and instigated the
students to give false complaints against the
petitioner. The report submitted by the
Committee is not fair, and it is only with a
view to wrongly implicate the petitioner in
an alleged incident. The said report is false
and fabricated. Though, show cause notice
was issued on 09.06.2011, the Principal had
deliberately kept it with her, and same was
served to the petitioner, almost after two
months i.e. on 17.08.2011. The said show
cause notice is without signature of
competent authority. It shows non application
of mind. The CAT failed to consider the fact
that several parents have submitted their
affidavits stating therein the innocence of
the petitioner.
4] It is further submitted that,
Article 81 [B] of the Education Code for
Kendriya Vidyalaya is ultra vires to Article
14 of the Constitution of India, since under
2625.2014WP.odt
the said Article, holding of an enquiry is
dispensed with thereby giving no opportunity
to the delinquent to put forth his say. Said
provision gives arbitrary power to the
authority. Therefore, the impugned order
dated 8th May, 2013, passed by the CAT,
Bombay, Bench at Mumbai, is not legally
sustainable.
5] It is further submitted that, the
statement of the concerned students were not
recorded in presence of the petitioner. The
Constitution of the Committee was contrary to
the provisions of Article 159 of Education
Code inasmuch as, the Principal appointed
five members instead of appointing three
members as provided.
It is further urged that, when there
is provision for conducting full-fledged
enquiry in respect of any misconduct before
imposing major punishment, denying an
2625.2014WP.odt
opportunity to defend the case in the full-
fledged enquiry is nothing but violation of
principles of natural justice. It is argued
that, termination of services of the
petitioner, which is a major penalty, under
the garb of dispensing with a full-fledged
enquiry, is nothing but, an arbitrary action
and thus violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
6] The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner invited our attention to the
pleadings in the Petition and grounds taken
therein and submits that the principles of
natural justice have not been followed in the
present case. He also invited our attention
to the judgment of the Division Bench in the
case of Prof.Manohar Dhonde & anr. Vs. State
of Maharashtra & ors.1 and submitted that,
even in the case of allegations in respect of
sexual harassment, adherence to the
1 2007 [2] ALL MR 717
2625.2014WP.odt
principles of natural justice so as to defend
the said allegation is necessary. The
principles of natural justice cannot be
divorced from any enquiry, more so when the
conclusions of the enquiry are likely to
impose penal consequence or civil liability.
The learned counsel further submitted that
though Article 81 [B] of the Education Code
confers power upon the Commissioner as
contemplated under the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1965 (for short, referred to as the 'CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965'); even summary enquiry
contemplates show cause notice with charge /
allegations and documents alleged against the
delinquent so as to give him opportunity to
reply the same. In support of the aforesaid
contentions, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner pressed into service
exposition of law in the case of All India
Judges Association and others Vs. Union of
2625.2014WP.odt
India and others2 and in particular, para 20
thereof. Therefore, relying upon the
pleadings in the Petition and grounds taken
therein, annexures thereto and the reported
judgment of which reference is already made
herein-above, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner submits that the petition
deserves to be allowed.
7] Since the allegations against the
petitioner relates to the sexual harassment,
we do not wish to refer the father, parents
of the girls or the concerned girls by name
in the judgment. Therefore, we would refer
the father as 'A' and girls / students as
'B'.
8] The learned counsel appearing for
respondent nos. 1 to 4 relying upon the
averments in the affidavit in reply made
following submissions:
2 [2004] 13 SCC 572
2625.2014WP.odt
9] Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan [for
short 'Sangathan'] is an autonomous body
registered as a society under the Societies
Registration Act XXI of 1860 with the
objective to provide, establish, endow,
maintain, contribute and manage schools
[hereinafter called the 'Kendriya Vidyalayas'
for the children of transferable employees of
the Government of India, Defence, Floating
population and others and to do all acts and
things necessary or conducive for the
promotion of such schools etc. The Sangathan
is fully funded by the Government of India.
The Authorities of the Sangathan are Board of
Governors, the Chairman of KVS is the
Minister of HRD, Deputy Chairman and Vice-
Chairman, whereas, the Officers of the
sangathan are the Commissioner, Additional
Commissioner, Joint Commissioners, Deputy
Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner.
2625.2014WP.odt
There are around 1093 Kendriya Vidyalayas all
over the country, and for control over the
same, 25 Regional Offices have been
established. Each Regional office is under
the control of the Deputy Commissioner who
looks after the management, administration
and academic affairs of the Kendriya
Vidyalayas under his / her control. The
Principal is the head of Kendriya Vidyalaya
who manages financial, administrative and
academic affairs of the vidyalaya. For
smooth functioning of the kendriya
vidyalayas, the Education Code and the
Accounts Code, duly approved by the Board of
Governors have been framed. Article 80 of
the Education Code provides for extension of
the application of the CCS [CCA] Rules, 1965
and these Rules are applicable to KVS mutatis
mutandis.
10] He further submits that 'A' father
2625.2014WP.odt
of 'B', student of class IV/B made a
complaint dated 21.12.2010 against the
petitioner alleging commission of acts by
petitioner amounting to moral turpitude
against his daughter. The said report was
received from the Principal, KV, Aurangabad,
about the complaint against the petitioner.
The preliminary enquiry was conducted by the
Principal at the Vidyalaya level.
Thereafter, the summary enquiry was conducted
by the duly constituted Committee. The
summary enquiry report along with the
relevant documents were sent to respondent
no.2, who is the competent Authority to take
action under Article 81 [B] of the Education
Code. Thereafter, respondent no.2 had issued
a show cause notice dated 9th June, 2011 to
the petitioner giving him an opportunity to
make representation, if any, against the said
show cause notice. A show cause notice was
issued by respondent no.2 under Article 81
2625.2014WP.odt
[B] of the Education Code, however, the
petitioner made a representation dated
16.09.2011, instead of submitting the reply
to show cause notice, to investigate the
matter under Redressal Committee for SC/ST
Employees of KVS as per the Article 159 of
Education Code, which was irrelevant in the
present context and had nothing to do with
the present case.
11] After examining the case and the
relevant documents by KVS [HQ], respondent
no.2 terminated service of the petitioner
from KVS vide order dated 1st November, 2011,
and the Principal, KV, Aurangabad has paid
pay and allowances for three months in lieu
of notice period as per the directives by KVS
[HQ]. An appeal preferred by the petitioner
against the order of termination has also
been rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner
filed Original Application before the CAT and
2625.2014WP.odt
the same is also rejected. Article 159 of
the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalaya is
related to redressal of grievances for SC/ST
employees of KVS which is out of context in
the present case. The Principal, KV,
Aurangabad constituted a Preliminary Enquiry
Committee as per the KVS Circular
No.F-11-40/2001/KVS [Vig.] dated 24th January,
2002 and 1st March, 2005 as per the provisions
of Article 81 [B] of Education Code as the
matter pertains to moral turpitude against
girl student.
12] As per Article 81 [B] of the
Education Code, respondent no.2 is empowered
to take action under the said Article
without holding regular enquiry as provided
under CCS [CCA] Rules, 1965, and terminate
the services. On the basis of preliminary as
well as summary enquiry reports, the
petitioner was found guilty of moral
2625.2014WP.odt
turpitude involving sexual offence and
exhibition of immoral sexual behaviour
towards girl students. The petitioner made
representation dated 16th September, 2011, for
investigating the matter through Redressal
Committee for SC/ST Employees of KVS as per
Article 159 of the Education Code, which is
totally irrelevant and uncalled for and was
made only with a motive to avoid action under
Article 81 [B]. The case was dealt with under
Article 81 [B] of the Education Code and not
under CCS [CCA] Rules, 1965, and the
petitioner was given an opportunity to put up
his defence during the preliminary as well as
summary enquiry conducted by the Principal,
KV, Aurangabad and the then respondent no.3,
respectively. The learned counsel invited our
attention to the observations made by the
CAT, Mumbai in para 13 of the impugned
judgment. He submits that, opportunity was
given to the petitioner to put up his defence
2625.2014WP.odt
during preliminary as well as summary
enquiry. Respondent no.2 terminated the
services of the petitioner on the basis of
findings recorded in the preliminary and
summary enquiry reports and considering all
relevant documents. Ample opportunities were
given to the petitioner to put up his defence
during enquiries and later on the action has
been taken against the petitioner by the
Disciplinary Authority and Appellate
Authority as per the Rules, and therefore,
there is no violation of principles of
natural justice and Article 14 of the
Constitution of India as alleged by the
petitioner.
13] The learned counsel appearing for
respondent nos.1 and 4 pressed into service
the exposition of the Supreme Court in the
case of Avinash Nagra Vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya
Samiti and others3 and submitted that, the
3 [1997] 2 SCC 534
2625.2014WP.odt
success of the educational process depends
considerably on the teacher, for it is the
teacher who has to implant aims, and to build
the character of the students. Therefore, the
conduct of the teacher should be befitting
with such higher responsibilities; however,
the petitioner by his conduct betrayed the
trust and forfeited the faith whether he
would be entitled to the full-fledged enquiry
as demanded by him. He further pressed into
service exposition of the Supreme Court in
the case of Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya
Samiti and others Vs. Babban Prasad Yadav and
another4 and submits that when the case
relates to the allegation of the teacher
indulging in immoral conduct with the girl
students regular enquiry is not contemplated
and such case can be enquired into by summary
enquiry. He further placed reliance on the
judgment of the Division Bench of Karnataka
4 [2004] 13 SCC 568
2625.2014WP.odt
High Court in the case of Government of India
and ors Vs. Dhanu S. Rathod5 wherein, the
Karnataka High Court has considered the
provisions of Article 81 [B] of the
Education Code for KV vis-a-vis CCS [CCA]
Rules, 1965 and clarified that reservation
made to the Sanghathan to take action will
not require the Sanghathan to hold a regular
enquiry permitting cross-examination of the
complainant/s or witnesses of the management.
He further submitted that in the case of
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and anr. vs.
State of Jharkhand and another6, the Division
Bench of Jharkhand High Court held that
normally in the matter of internal
administration of the educational
institutions with regard to discipline and
conduct of the teachers and the students, the
Court or the Tribunal should be very slow in
interfering with such matters.
5 2002 [4] KCCR 347
6 2008 DGLS(AHC) 12063;
2625.2014WP.odt
14] We have considered the submissions
of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel appearing
for the respondents. With their able
assistance, perused the pleadings in the
Petition, grounds taken therein, annexures
thereto, reply filed by the respondents and
the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court
and various High Courts, cited across the Bar
during the course of hearing. We have
carefully perused the original record and
proceedings. It appears that the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority have
examined and considered the relevant aspect
of the issues. The CAT has also considered
the entire record of the case and also
proceedings of the Enquiry Committee and also
defence statement and the reports submitted
by the applicant in response to the charge-
sheet. At the outset it would be apt to
2625.2014WP.odt
reproduce herein-below Article 81 [B] in
Chapter-VIII [Discipline] of Extension of the
application of Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules,
1965:
"81. [A] ......
[B] Termination of services of an
employee found guilty of immoral
behaviour towards students:
Where the Commissioner is
satisfied after such a summary enquiry
as he deems proper and practicable in
the circumstances of the case that any
member of the Kendriya vidyalaya is
prima-facie guilty of moral turpitude
involving sexual offence or exhibition
of immoral sexual behaviour towards any
student, he can terminate the services
of that employee by giving him one
month's or three month's pay and
allowances accordingly as the guilty
employee is temporary or permanent in
the service of the Sangathan. In such
cases, procedure prescribed for holding
enquiry for imposing major penalty in
accordance with CCS [CCA] Rules, 1965
as applicable to the employees of the
2625.2014WP.odt
Kendriya vidyalaya Sangathan, shall be
dispensed with, provided that the
Commissioner is of the opinion that it
is not expedient to hold regular
enquiry on account of embarrassment to
student or his guardians or such other
practical difficulties. The
commissioner shall record in writing
the reasons under which it is not
reasonably practicable to hold such
enquiry and he shall keep the Chairman
of the Sangathan informed of the
circumstances leading to such
termination of services.
Note:Wherever and as far as possible, a
summary inquiry in the complaint of
immoral behaviour by a teacher towards
the students of Kendriya Vidyalayas may
be got investigated by the Complaints
Redressal Committees constituted in the
Regional offices.
15] Keeping in view the aforesaid
provision and the facts involved in the
present case, on receiving the complaint on
December 21, 2010, the Principal of KV,
Aurangabad, from 'A' father of 'B' girl
2625.2014WP.odt
student of Class-IV alleging that the
petitioner has misbehaved with his daughter
and her two friends studying in standard IV
and V, the Principal constituted a Committee
on December 24, 2010, to hold a preliminary
enquiry. The Committee found that the charge
levelled against the petitioner was prima
facie established. On December 29, 2010, the
Principal forwarded the said Enquiry Report
to the Deputy commissioner, Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan, Mumbai Region for
further action. As directed by the Deputy
Commissioner, a summary enquiry was held by a
Committee constituted by him for the said
purpose. The said Committee also found that
the allegations made against the petitioner
have been established. Consequently, a show
cause notice was issued to the petitioner on
June 9, 2011, directing him to state reasons,
if any, as to why his services should not be
terminated under Article 81 [B] of the
2625.2014WP.odt
Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalaya. The
Disciplinary Authority after considering the
representation of the petitioner filed on
September 12, 2011, issued order of
termination, terminating his services with
immediate effect. It was made clear that the
petitioner will be entitled to pay and
allowances as admissible under the Rules, in
lieu of notice period. The said order was
challenged by the petitioner before the
Appellate Authority, the Vice Chairman of the
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, who by his
order dated March 2, 2013 confirmed the order
passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
Upon perusal of the material placed
on record, it appears that on 27.12.2010, the
petitioner was informed to attend Enquiry
Committee meeting on 28th December, 2010, at
1.00 p.m. On 28.12.2010, a typed copy of
questionnaire of preliminary enquiry was
2625.2014WP.odt
given to the petitioner. The petitioner
answered said questionnaire. Thereafter
again, on 31st January, 2011, the
questionnaire was provided by the Education
Officer / Enquiry Officer to the petitioner.
The petitioner replied the said
questionnaire. Thereafter, enquiry report
was prepared. The said enquiry report is
divided into three chapters. Chapter-1
mentions about the contents of allegations,
constitution of Committee of three members,
directions issued to the said Committee to
visit the Vidyalaya to take necessary
feedback from all the student, staff members
and parents concerned and to record their
statements duly signed by them. The
Committee further directed to give
opportunity to the petitioner to submit his
defence. As per the office order, summary
Inquiry Committee conducted enquiry on
31.01.2011. Chapter-2 deals with the
2625.2014WP.odt
allegations made against the petitioner. An
allegation against the petitioner has been
mentioned in the said report. Said chapter
further refers to the written statement of
three girl students, which were recorded on
21.12.2010 and 28.12.2010. The names of 5
Committee Members have also been mentioned.
The gist of allegations of three girl
students of IV class, is also mentioned in
the said chapter. In chapter-3, enquiry
procedure is mentioned. It is mentioned in
the said chapter that three students of class
IV/B, who initially made written statement on
21.12.2010 and 28.12.2010 and submitted the
same to fact finding Committee making
allegation against the petitioner. The member
of said Committee spoke to all three girls on
31.01.2011 and taken their written statement.
The members of the said Committee also spoke
to the relatives of the girls. The members
of the said Committee also spoke to the
2625.2014WP.odt
petitioner, and taken his written statement
based upon input given by the students. The
statement of other teachers have also been
recorded. The petitioner was given an
opportunity on 31.01.2011 to record his
statement in defence of the allegation made
against him by three girl students of class
IV/B. The Committee looked into the statement
made by the teacher before the fact finding
Committee on 21.12.2010 and 28.12.2010 and
other related documents given by the KVS RO,
Mumbai. In chapter-4 there is list of oral
and documentary evidence. Upon perusal of
the list of the said documents, it refers to
the office order for conducting summary
inquiry, complaint received from parents,
constitution of fact finding committee,
written statements submitted by three girls
and teachers on 21.12.2010, written statement
given by the petitioner i.e. Mr. Gokul
Ingale, Principal's report dated 21.12.2010,
2625.2014WP.odt
report submitted by the Fact Finding
Committee, written statement given by three
girls of class IV/B, written statement given
by mother of one of the girls, questionnaire
given to the petitioner by the Fact Finding
Committee, written statement given by the
petitioner, statement given by three girls of
class IV/B on 31.01.2011, written statement
given by brother of one girl on 31.01.2011,
written statement given by the sister of one
of the girls on 31.01.2011, written
statement given by mother of one girl,
written statement given by father of one of
the girls, another statement of father of
one of the girls, written statement given by
the father of third girl, written statement
given by the teachers, written statement
given by the petitioner, photocopy of the
report published in news paper i.e. Lokmat
Times and Local Papers on 24.12.2010,
photocopy of time table of the petitioner,
2625.2014WP.odt
photocopy of class work of class II/A and
photocopy of letter received from Rachit
Rawat, Officiating Officer commanding, etc.
Therefore, if the aforesaid documents are
considered in its entirety it appears that,
at every occasion, the petitioner was given
an opportunity to put forth his contention.
He has also replied two questionnaires and
filed two written statements.
16] Even before terminating the services
of the petitioner, show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner by the Disciplinary
Authority and thereafter the petitioner's
services have been terminated. Therefore, we
do not find any substance in the argument of
the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that, there is no adherence to the
principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Nagra
Vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and others
2625.2014WP.odt
[supra], in para 6 and 11 held thus:
"Before answering the question
whether the order terminating the
services of the appellant in terms of
his appointment letter is in violation
of the Rules or the principles of
natural justice, it is necessary to
consider the need for the education and
the place of the teacher in that
behalf. Article 45 of the Constitution
enjoins the State to endeavour to
provide free and compulsory education
to all children, till they complete the
age of 14 years. The Supreme Court has
held that right to education is a
fundamental right and the State is
required to organise education through
its agencies or private institutions in
accordance with the law and the
regulations or the scheme. The State
has taken care of service conditions of
the teacher and he owes dual
fundamental duties to himself and to
the society. As a member of the noble
teaching profession and a citizen of
India he should always be willing,
self-disciplined, dedicated with
integrity to remain ever a learner of
knowledge, intelligently to articulate
2625.2014WP.odt
and communicate and imbibe in his
students, as social duty, to impart
education, to bring them up with
discipline, inculcate to abjure
violence and to develop scientific
temper with a spirit of enquiry and
reform constantly to rise to higher
levels in any walk of life nurturing
constitutional ideals enshrined in
Article 51-A so as to make the students
responsible citizens of the country.
The quality, competence and character
of the teacher are, therefore, most
significant to mould the calibre,
character and capacity of the students
for successful working of democratic
institutions and to sustain them in
their later years of life as a
responsible citizen in different
responsibilities."
It is further held in para 12 that
Education to the girl children is nation's
asset and foundation for fertile human
resources and disciplined family management,
apart from their equal participation in
socio-economic and political democracy. Only
of late, some middle-class people are sending
2625.2014WP.odt
the girl children to co-educational
institutions under the care of proper
management and to look after the welfare and
safety of the girls. Therefore, greater
responsibility is thrust on the management of
the schools and colleges to protect the young
children, in particular, the growing up
girls, to bring them up in disciplined and
dedicated pursuit of excellence. The Supreme
Court further observed in para 12 that
character and conduct of the teacher should
be more like Rishi and as loco parentis and such
is the duty, responsibility and charge
expected of a teacher. It is further
observed that in such cases enquiry is not a
panacea but a nail in the coffin. It is
self-inspection and correction that is
supreme. The Supreme Court also considered
rules involved in the said case and observed
that the rules wisely devised have given the
power to the Director, the highest authority
2625.2014WP.odt
in the management of the institution to take
decision, based on the fact-situation,
whether a summary enquiry was necessary or he
can dispense with the services of the
appellant by giving pay in lieu of notice.
Two safeguards have been provided, namely, he
should record reasons for his decision not to
conduct an enquiry under the rules and also
post with facts the information with
Minister, Human Resources Department,
Government of India in that behalf.
Therefore, it follows from the authoritative
pronouncement of the Supreme court that in
such cases, it is dispensing with regular
enquiry and denial of cross examination is
justified. In the case of Director, Navodaya
Vidyalaya Samiti and others Vs. Babban Prasad
Yadav and another [supra], the very rule
which is pressed into service by the
respondents herein relating to the dispensing
with the enquiry notified on 20.12.1993 was
2625.2014WP.odt
considered and the Supreme Court in para 7
held thus:
"7. We are of the view that the High
Court erred in reversing the decision
of the Tribunal. The rule quoted
earlier, explicitly deals with such a
situation as obtains in the present
case. The rule is not under challenge.
All that is required for the court is
to be satisfied that the preconditions
to the exercise of power under the said
rule are fulfilled. These preconditions
are: (1) holding of a summary enquiry,
(2) a finding in such summary enquiry
that the charged employee was guilty of
a moral turpitude; (3) the satisfaction
of the Director on the basis of such
summary enquiry that the charged
officer was prima facie guilty; (4) the
satisfaction of the Director that it
was not expedient to hold an enquiry on
account of serious embarrassment to be
caused to the student or his guardians
or such other practical difficulties
and finally; (5) the recording of the
reasons in writing in support of the
aforesaid."
17] In the present case, upon
2625.2014WP.odt
considering the material placed on record,
all the aforesaid conditions mentioned have
been fulfilled. An Enquiry Committee was
duly constituted. An enquiry Committee has
recorded its definite conclusion and
thereafter Disciplinary Authority after
giving show cause notice has terminated the
services of the petitioner. Appeal filed by
the petitioner also came to be dismissed and
the CAT has also rejected the Application
filed by the petitioner.
18] In the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan and anr. vs. State of Jharkhand and
another [supra], the Jharkhand High Court has
also considered the similar fact situation
like in the present case. In the light of
Article 81 [B] of the Education Code for KV
and held that in the facts of that case the
Tribunal has not considered the gravity of
the complaint made against the respondent
2625.2014WP.odt
therein, who is none else but a teacher of
the School and the allegation against him is
of moral turpitude. The Tribunal also failed
to notice that not only summary enquiry
committee but also Commissioner and the Vice
Chairman being the appointing authority and
the appellate authority, have given
opportunity to the respondent to submit his
explanation / show cause and also to
participate in the proceeding. The Tribunal,
therefore, ought not to have interfered with
the orders passed by the Authorities of the
School. In para 11 of the said judgment,
Jharkhand High Court observed, thus:
11. From perusal of the impugned order
passed by the Tribunal, we are of the
view that the Tribunal has not
considered the gravity of the complaint
made against the respondent, who is
none else but a teacher of the school
and the allegation against him is of
moral turpitude. The Tribunal also
failed to notice that not only the
2625.2014WP.odt
summary enquiry committee but also the
Commissioner and the Vice-chairman
being the appointing authority and the
appellate authority, have given
opportunity to the respondent to submit
his explanation / show cause and also
to participate in the proceeding. The
Tribunal, therefore, ought not to have
interfered with the orders passed by
the Authorities of the school. In our
view, normally in the matter of the
internal administration of the
educational institutions with regard to
discipline and conduct of the teachers
and the students, the court or the
tribunal should be very slow in
interfering with such matters. In our
considered opinion, therefore, the
impugned order passed by the Tribunal
cannot be sustained in law.
19] The learned counsel appearing of the
petitioner placed heavy reliance on the
judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the
case of Government of India and ors Vs. Dhanu
S. Rathod [supra]; however, in the facts of
that case, the Commissioner at New Delhi has
passed the order of termination. He has not
2625.2014WP.odt
held summary enquiry. He merely acted on the
Assistant Commissioner's order passed at
Banglore. However, in the present case,
before terminating the services of the
petitioner, show cause notice was issued, the
Disciplinary Authority after considering
representation dated September 12, 2011,
submitted by the petitioner, terminated his
services.
20] In the light of discussion herein-
above, we are unable to persuade ourselves to
cause interference in the order of
termination and, also the impugned judgment
and order passed by the CAT. We are of the
view that the impugned termination order and
also the reasons / findings recorded by the
Tribunal are in consonance with the relevant
provisions of law and also material placed on
record. We are also not inclined to accept
the argument of the counsel appearing for the
2625.2014WP.odt
petitioner that Article 81 [B] of the
Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalaya is
ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. In that view of the matter, the
Writ Petition stands rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
[V.K.JADHAV] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
