Anirudh Kumar Pandey vs Management Of Modern Public ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6851 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                                   Decided on: 30.11.2017

+     LPA 620/2017 & CM NO. 34163/2017 (condonation of delay of
      193 days in filing of appeal)

      ANIRUDH KUMAR PANDEY                                 ..... Appellant

                        Through:       Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate along
                                       with Mr. Tenzing Thinlay Lepcha,
                                       Advocate.

                              versus

      MANAGEMENT OF MODERN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS.
                                         ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. B.C. Pandey, Mr. S.P.

Kamrah, Mr. Rupal Lutara and Mr. Abhinandan, Advocates for respondent No. 1 and respondent No.

Mr. Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD along with Mr. Akshay Agarwal, Advocate for Directorate of Education/R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

1. Vide this appeal, the appellant has impugned the order dated

27.01.2017 by which the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.

LPA 620/2017 Page 1 6873/2008 set aside the judgment of the Delhi School Tribunal dated

26.08.2008, holding that the appellant's resignation dated 12.09.2000

became final on being accepted by the Managing Committee on 12.09.2000

itself and the appellant could not have withdrawn his resignation by his

subsequent letters since the letters of withdrawal were written after the

acceptance of the resignation by the respondent no.1/School.

2. Undisputed facts show that the appellant was in the employment of

School since 04.10.1994 as TGT (Music). While on duty on 11.09.2000, he

was handed over a memo dated 09.09.2000 with regard to the charges for

outraging the modesty of girl students and misbehaving with lady teachers.

He was directed to submit his explanation within 24 hours. Instead of

submitting the explanation within 24 hours, the appellant submitted his

resignation dated 12.09.2000, resigning from his service with immediate

effect. The said resignation was accepted by the Managing Committee of the

respondent No.1/School on the same date and it was sent for the approval of

the Director of Education (hereinafter referred to as "DoE") on 15.09.2000

who accorded the approval on 15.11.2000. The services of the appellant

were dispensed with by the School w.e.f. 12.09.2000.

LPA 620/2017 Page 2

3. The appellant had challenged the said termination of the service by

way of the Appeal No. 25/2000 before the Delhi School Tribunal. The

Tribunal, thereafter, on the basis of the pleadings before it, considered the

issue relating to the date of acceptance of the resignation i.e. whether it was

accepted on 12.09.2000 or 15.11.2000 and the issue whether the appellant

was forced to resign on 12.09.2000 or he had submitted his resignation on

12.09.2000 voluntarily. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments

addressed and the documents placed before it, reached to the conclusion that

before the resignation could have been approved by the DoE in terms of

Rule 114A of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, the appellant had

withdrawn his resignation and therefore, the respondent no. 1/School was

directed to reinstate the appellant w.e.f. 12.09.2000. No findings on the

issue whether the appellant was forced to submit his resignation or not was

given by the Tribunal.

4. The respondent No. 1/School challenged the findings of the Tribunal

in W.P(C) No. 6873/2008. The Single Judge passed the following order

27.01.2017:-

" 7. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed.

Impugned judgment of the Delhi School Tribunal dated 26.8.2008 is set aside by holding that in view of the specific language of Rule 114A the respondent no. 3‟s

LPA 620/2017 Page 3 resignation dated 12.9.2000 became final on being accepted by the Managing Committee on 12.9.2000 itself, and the respondent no. 3 thereafter could not have withdrawn his resignation by his letters dated 17.9.2000 (which was in fact a blank document sent under envelope to the petitioner no. 1/school on 12.9.2000. Also, I do not find that there could have been any reason for denial of the approval of resignation by the Director of Education because in fact after duly considering the stand of the respondent no. 3 of alleged forcible resignation, the Director of Education has given approval for acceptance of the resignation on account of there existing serious issues of respondent no. 3 outranging the modesty of minor girls studying in the petitioner no. 1/ school and which approval of Director of Education will relate back to 12.9.2000 when the resignation was accepted by the Managing Committee of the petition no.1/school.

8. Writ petition is therefore allowed as stated above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs."

5. The first and foremost argument of Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned

counsel of the appellant is that the resignation was not voluntary but it was

extracted under coercion and duress. The appellant had also filed a police

complaint on 09.09.2000. It is further argued that the fact that the School

gave only 24 hours to reply the show cause notice dated 09.09.2000 served

upon him on 11.09.2000, itself shows that undue pressure was put upon him.

The appellant intended to give a reply dated 12.09.2000 to the show cause

notice but the School Management refused to accept it. It is argued that the

acceptance of the resignation by the Managing Committee within three

LPA 620/2017 Page 4 hours of its submission shows the element of force and coercion which was

played upon him for extracting the resignation. The appellant immediately

filed a police complaint on 12.09.2000 itself and withdrew his resignation

vide his letters dated 17.09.2000, 19.09.2000 and 28.09.2000.

6. Mr. Aggarwal further argued that the resignation was withdrawn by the

appellant before the approval given by the DoE. The resignation therefore

was validly withdrawn in terms of Rule 114A. It is further argued that in

terms of Rule 114A of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, the resignation

can be said to have been validly accepted only after the approval is accorded

by the DoE. The acceptance of the letter of resignation by the Managing

Committee alone without the approval of the Director, is not a valid

acceptance. It is argued that before the approval was granted by DoE i.e. on

15.11.2000, the appellant had withdrawn his resignation letter vide its letters

dated 17.09.2000, 19.09.2000 and 28.09.2000 and hence the termination of

his services by the School is illegal and the learned Single Judge has erred in

holding otherwise. It is further argued that the resignation is a matter of

intention i.e. a complete intention to relinquish and that the sequence of

events in this case clearly shows that the appellant had no such intentions. It

is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the law laid down by

LPA 620/2017 Page 5 another Single Judge Bench of this Court in Mala Tandon Thukral vs.

Director of Education in W.P.(C) No. 7356/2008; decided on 28.01.2010.

Mr. Aggarwal further argued that the Managing Committee comprises of

only one person i.e. Manager of the School and she is not competent to

accept the resignation in terms of the law declared by this Court in the case

of Urmil Sharma vs. Director of Education, 1996 III AD (Delhi) 48.

7. Relying on the findings of this Court in the case of Govt. of NCT of

Delhi & Ors. vs. Naresh Kumar Kataria,199 (2013)DLT 613, it is argued

that the Management of the School has acted with bias and pre-determined

mind to terminate his services. It is further submitted that the allegations in

the show-cause notice dated 09.09.2000 were never proved against the

appellant nor any enquiry was held. It is further argued that he was never

communicated the acceptance of his resignation. He further argued that the

process of the resignation is complete only when the acceptance of

resignation is duly communicated to the employees. It is argued by learned

counsel for the appellant that in circumstances of this case, the action of the

School whereby relieving the appellant from service on account of his

resignation letter dated 12.09.2000 is illegal and, therefore, prayed to be

reinstated to the service.

LPA 620/2017 Page 6

8. On the other hand, it is argued by Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, learned

counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1/School that the School has received

various complaints of sexual harassment from the girls who were attending

his music class and of misbehavior from the teachers and after an enquiry, a

show cause notice dated 09.09.2000 was given to the appellant on

11.09.2000 and he was asked to submit his reply within 24 hours. He

instead of submitting his reply within 24 hours, in order to avoid any

enquiry into such serious allegations of molestation of young girls,

submitted his resignation on 12.09.2000 which was accepted by the

Managing Committee on the same very date i.e. 12.09.2000 and the decision

of Managing Committee was sent for approval of DoE vide letter dated

15.09.2000 and the approval was accorded by 15.11.2000.

9. Mr. Malhotra further argued that under Rule 114A of Delhi School

Education Rules, 1973, the process of acceptance of the resignation of an

employee of a recognized private school is complete as soon as the

resignation is accepted by the Managing Committee of the School within 30

days. The Managing Committee is required to accord its acceptance within

30 days. It is further argued that the appellant had submitted his resignation

with request to accept it with immediate effect and, therefore, the Managing

LPA 620/2017 Page 7 Committee had immediately accepted his resignation. It is argued that the

Managing Committee is not required to consult the DoE nor it requires its

prior approval for acceptance of the resignation. The Managing Committee

is competent under Rule 114A of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 to

accept the resignation. It merely needs the approval of its act of acceptance

of the resignation letter from DoE and the DoE plays a limited role in that.

It is further argued that the proviso to this Rule further supplements the plea

of the respondent No. 1 / School that the approval of the Director is not sine

qua non for the acceptance of the resignation letter. The language used in

proviso clearly states the intention of the Legislature that the approval of

DoE is not necessary for acceptance of the resignation letter and as soon as

the resignation letter is accepted by the Managing Committee and sent for

approval of DoE, and if no approval is conveyed by the DoE within 30 days,

the Legislature clarifies that such approval shall be deemed to have been

accorded. It is argued that the Managing Committee therefore has been

given the authority under this Rule to accept the resignation letter and as

soon as it has accepted it, the process of acceptance is complete. It is argued

that in this case, the letter of resignation was accepted on 12.09.2000 itself

and once it was accepted, the appellant could not have subsequently

LPA 620/2017 Page 8 withdrawn it. It is further argued that the findings in the cases Mala Tandon

Thukral (supra), Urmila Sharma (supra) and Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra)

are given on the facts in those cases, which are different from the facts of the

present case and thus findings are distinguishable. It is submitted that the

impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and the appeal is liable to

be dismissed.

10. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the

parties and have perused the record.

11. The admitted facts are that a show cause notice dated 09.09.2000 was

served upon the appellant which reads as under:-

MEMO Mr. Anirudh Kumar Pandy, Music Teacher AL-113, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088

Sub: Show Cause Gentleman, Complaints have come to our notice that you had been indulging in indecent behaviour and immoral conduct with some of the girl students of this school in your day to day dealing with them within the music room and elsewhere as under:-

1. You will call them near you and immorally touch their body, private parts and pinch them.

LPA 620/2017 Page 9

2. You had been immorally trying to hug them in order to violate their chastity.

3. You will pass indecent remarks about them.

4. You had been making indecent advances towards them causing great harassment, repugnance and mental and physical cruelty to them.

These are only some of the instances of moral turpitude and there are many more which will be brought to your notice in a detailed charge sheet to follow.

Please show cause why disciplinary action be not taken against you receipt of this memo failing which it shall be presumed that you have not explanation to offer and the necessary action with follow.

You are informed accordingly.

SD/-

(A.L. KAPUR) MANAGER"

This memo was served upon the appellant on 11.09.2000 and he was

asked to submit his reply within 24 hours. Admittedly, the appellant had

submitted his resignation on 12.09.2000. It is also apparent that the

appellant has not submitted any reply to the show cause notice. He,

although, contends that he prepared the reply and the respondent No.

1/School refused to receive it, however, there is nothing on record to show

that he made any attempt to send his reply by post or otherwise. His

contention before the Tribunal was that the School refused to accept his

reply. Besides this contention, there is nothing on record to substantiate his

LPA 620/2017 Page 10 plea, that he submitted his reply to show- cause notice within 24 hours and

the School refused to receive it. The resignation letter of the appellant reads

as under:-

To Director/Principal Modern Public School Shalimar Bagh Delhi-88 Sub: Resignation from service.

Sir, I wish to resign from my post of music teacher because at home my mother has not been keeping well for the last one and half year.

Therefore, in order to enable me to serve my mother, my resignation may be accepted as soon as possible. I shall be grateful for this.

      Dated 12/9/2000                         Yours
      Time 12.10 pm.                          Anirudh Pandey
                                              Music teacher
                                              Modern public school
                                              Shalimar Bagh Delhi-88

Forwarded to the Principal for Necessary action. Sd. 12.9.2000 Forwarded to the manager for placing it before the managing committee.

Sd/Principal 12/9/2000 Received on behalf of the Managing committee of the school/society Sd. Alka Kapur Manager 12/9/2000"

(emphasis supplied)

LPA 620/2017 Page 11

12. The resignation letter is unconditional and vide this resignation, he

has urged the School to accept it "as soon as possible." The record shows

that it was submitted to the Principal of the School and the Principal

forwarded it to the Manager for placing it before the Managing Committee

and thereafter it was put up before the Managing Committee and was put up

for consideration in the emergency meeting scheduled for 12.09.2000 at 3

p.m. Besides other agendas, which related to the complaints of students,

parents and teachers regarding indecent and immoral behavior of the Music

Teacher, the appellant, the resignation letter of the appellant was also

considered by the Managing Committee during the hearing of these other

items fixed in the agenda for discussion, the Manager pointed out that the

appellant had submitted his resignation and had requested his relieve from the

post at the earliest. The decision of the Managing Committee is reproduced

hereunder:-

"Item-1. Dealt with the complaints of certain students, parents and teachers regarding indecent and immoral behaviour of Mr. Anirudh Kumar Pandey, Music Teacher of this School.

The Manager pointed out that Mr. Anirudh Kumar Pandey has already resigned by his letter of resignation dated 12.09.2000 at 12.10 PM and has requested to be relieved immediately. The matter concerns the grave moral turpitude of the teacher of the school. If it is further pursued and subjected to a domestic/legal enquiry, it may expose out tender students,

LPA 620/2017 Page 12 teachers and parents to ridicule, dirty revelations and avoidable harassment to all concerned. The members were, therefore, of the unanimous opinion that the matter be not pursued any further as it will also affect the reputation of the school and the teacher be allowed to resign and go without pursuing the matter further on this score.

Members, therefore, unanimously decided that the resignation submitted by the teacher be immediately accepted subject to the approval of Director of Education, Delhi.

It was accordingly-

"Resolved that resignation letter dated 12.09.2000 submitted by Mr. Anirudh Kumar Pandey, Music Teacher of this school be immediately accepted subject to the approval of the Hon‟ble Director of Education, Delhi".

"Further Resolved that the Manager, Sh. A. L. Kapur, be authorised and he is hereby authorised to take all necessary steps to get the approval of the Hon‟ble Director as early as possible".

(emphasis supplied)

13. The issue before us is as to whether in view of the Rule 114A of Delhi

School Education Rules, 1973, the resignation letter of the appellant can be said

to have been accepted on 12.09.2000 when it was duly accepted by the Managing

Committee or on 15.11.2000 when the approval was accorded by DOE. It is a

settled proposition of law that once a letter of resignation is accepted, it cannot be

withdrawn and the withdrawal of resignation is permissible only before its

acceptance. Rule 114A of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973,deals with the

LPA 620/2017 Page 13 resignation by an employee of a recogonised private school. The relevant

provision is produced as under:-

"Rule 114A. Resignation- The resignation submitted by an employee of a recognized private school shall be accepted within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of the resignation by the managing committee with the approval of the Director.

Provided that if no approval is received within 30 days, then such approval would be deemed to have been received after the expiry of the said period."

14. The plain language of this provision clearly stipulates that whenever the

resignation is submitted by an employee, it shall be accepted by the Managing

Committee of a recogonised private school within a period of 30 days from the

date of submission of resignation letter. Thirty days is the outer limit given to

the Managing Committee to accept such resignation letter. It does not mean that

the Managing Committee has to defer its decision for 30 days. The Rule

requires that the Managing Committee shall take its decision within 30 days.

The language of the resignation letter of the appellant clearly shows that he had

desired its acceptance at the earliest. He submitted his resignation to the

Principal and the Principal forwarded it to the Managing Committee through

Manager which was subsequently put up in the meeting held on 12.09.2000 at 3

p.m and was considered during the discussion of Item No. 1 in the agenda

LPA 620/2017 Page 14 scheduled for that day. The Minutes of Meeting clearly shows that the Item No.

1 related to the complaints of certain students, parents and teachers regarding

indecent and immoral behaviour of Mr. Anirudh Kumar Pandey, Music Teacher

of the School. It was during the discussion of this agenda that it was brought

to the notice of the Managing Committee that instead of replying to the show

cause notice, the appellant had submitted the resignation and he had desired its

acceptance at the earliest. It was under these circumstance that the Managing

Committee accepted the resignation on 12.09.2000 itself and subseqently sent it

for the approval of the DOE. In the case of Bajaj Hindustan Limited vs. State

of U.P. and Ors, (2016) 12 SCC 613, the Supreme Court has discussed the

meaning of expression "approval", "prior approval", "previous approval" or

"permission". The Court has held in paragraphs 11 and 12 reproduced as

under:-

" 11. In Black‟s Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition), the word " approval" has been explained thus:

Approval- The act of confirming, ratifying, assenting, sanctioning, or consenting to some act or thing done by another.

Hence, approval to an act or decision can also be subsequent to the act or decision.

12. In U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra), this Court made the distinction between permission, prior approval and approval. Para 6 of the judgment is quoted hreinabove:

LPA 620/2017 Page 15

6. This Court in Life Insurance Corpn. Of India v. Escorts Ltd. (1986) 1 SCC 264, considering the distinction between "special permission" and "general permission", previous approval" or "prior approval" in para 63 held that:

63.......we are conscious that the word „prior‟ or „ previous‟ may be implied if the contextual situation or the object and design of the legislation demands it, we find no such compelling circumstances justifying reading any such implication into Section 29 (1) of the Act.

Ordinarily, the difference between approval and permission is that in the first case the action holds good until it is disapproved, while in the other case it does not become effective until permission is obtained. But permission subsequently granted may validate the previous Act."

15. It is clear that the language used in Rule 114A of Delhi School Education

Rules, 1973, is "with the approval of Director." The Rule does not require that

the resignation has to be accepted by the Managing Committee "with the prior

approval" nor does it require that the Managing Committee should accept it

"with the permission" of DoE. It simply states that the approval of the Director

has to be sought. The approval therefore has to be post acceptance of resignation

letter. The act of the Managing Committee holds good till the DoE disapprove

their action and if it is not so disapproved and the approval is granted, then the act

of the Managing Committee hold good from the date of its decision itself. This

interpretation of the Rule is further ratified by the deeming provision contained in

the Proviso of the said Rule, which clearly states that if no communication is

LPA 620/2017 Page 16 received from DoE, the approval shall be deemed to have been accorded.

Consequently, it is the decision of the Managing Committee which is final and

approval can be accorded ex post facto.

16. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that acceptance

was never communicated to the appellant before he submitted his withdrawal of

the resignation letter and, therefore, the acceptance of the resignation letter

cannot be termed to have become effective from the date it was accepted but from

the date the acceptance was communicated to the appellant. The appellant since

had withdrawn his resignation letter before communication of such acceptance,

the termination of its services pursuant to the said resignation letter is invalid.

The question whether the resignation letter becomes effective from the date of its

acceptance or from the date when such acceptance is communicated to the

resigning employee had come up before the Supreme Court in the case of North

Zone Cultural Centre and Another vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar reported at

(2003) 5 SCC 455. The Apex Court has held that the resignation of an employee

becomes effective on acceptance even if the acceptance is not communicated to

him. The relevant paragraph is extracted below:-

"16. Therefore, it is clear that non-communication of the acceptance does not make the resignation inoperative provided there is in fact an acceptance before the withdrawal."

LPA 620/2017 Page 17

17. The settled proposition of law is that once the resignation is accepted, the

subsequent withdrawal of the resignation is not permissible. In this case, the

resignation of the appellant was accepted on 12.09.2000. The withdrawal of

resignation letter by him subsequently is not permissible.

18. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that he was forced,

pressurized and coerced to submit his resignation is a question of fact. Although,

the appellant had raised this contention before the Tribunal but he had not led any

evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate his contention and no finding on this

question of fact was given by the Tribunal and also the appellant has not

challenged the order of the Tribunal on its failure to given findings on the issue

raised by him that he was forced, coerced or pressurized to submit the

resignation, before any competent authority.

19. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to substantiate the contention of

the appellant that he was coerced or forced or pressurized to submit his

resignation. The facts and the circumstances of this case clearly show that the

appellant submitted his resignation on receiving a show cause notice dated

11.09.2000 on the allegations of sexual harassment and molestation of the young

girls attending his music classes and also misbehavior with female teachers. He

was asked to submit his explanation to this show casue notice within 24 hours i.e.

LPA 620/2017 Page 18 by 12.09.2000 but he instead of submitting any explanation to the show cause

notice tendered his resignation.

20. The appellant has relied on the case of Mrs. Mala Tandon (supra). The

findings in this case are distinguishable on the facts of the present case. In the

case of Mrs. Mala Tandon (supra), the resignation dated 05.12.2007 was

withdrawn by Mala Tandon vide her letter dated 07.12.2007 and since the School

had failed to substantiate that the resignation was accepted by the Managing

Committee on 06.12.2007 i.e. before its withdrawal vide letter dated 07.12.2007,

this Court has given its findings on those facts of the case. The facts therefore are

clearly distinguishable. In the present case, the respondents have clearly shown

that the Managing Committee had accepted the resignation of the appellant on

12.09.2000 before he had submitted his letter of withdrawal of resignation.

21. The appellant has also relied on the findings of this Court in the case of

Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra). The findings are given on the fact of that case

which are different from the facts in this case. That case relates to the termination

of the services and does not relate to the termination of services on the resignation

letter of an employee. The findings in the Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra) are not

applicable on the facts of the present case.

LPA 620/2017 Page 19

22. The appellant has also relied on the findings of this Court in the case of

Urmil (supra). The findings in that case were also given on the facts of that case

which are distinguishable. In that case, the resignation letter was accepted by the

Manager and not by the Managing Committee and therefore the Court reached to

the conclusion that there was the violation of the provision of Rule 114 A of

Delhi Education Rules, 1973. In the present case, it was the Managing

Committee who had accepted the resignation letter; hence, in this case there is

due compliance of Rule 114A of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.

23. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the impugned judgment

does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and needs no interference. The

appeal has no merit.

24. Article 39 (f) of the Constitution of India mandates the State to secure " that

the children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner

and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are

protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment."

This mandate given by the Constitution is to protect the children from all kinds of

exploitation and abuse. Abuse of any kind is a great threat and is a matter of

serious concern. The School is an institution of learning where the child is

prepared and groomed for the Society. It is the duty of every School to provide

LPA 620/2017 Page 20 safe and healthy atmosphere for the psychological, cognitive and behavioral

development of the children. When it does not happen this way, it not only

shatters their faith and trust but also tarnishes the physical, psychological,

cognitive and behavioral development of the children. Any kind of abuse upon

the children either at School or at any other place leaves such deep impact on

them that it becomes difficult for them to come out of it. They carry the feeling

of anguish and torment throughout their lives within them and William Faulkner

is right when he says that "The past is never dead. It‟s not even past." The

impact of such heinous crimes upon the children are long-lasting and they enter

into teenage and adulthood carrying this hurt deep into them and it is not easy for

them to recover from the impact of such crimes. This completely destroys their

personality and life. Children spend considerable time of their day at School. It

is the responsibility of the School Management to provide safe and secure

environment to the children and also to prevent them from any danger or

harassment. The Management of the School should ensure that the adults who

work in the School do not pose a risk to children. If the children face any

harassment or untoward behavior and they report to their school administration, it

is their duty to deal with such matters strictly.

LPA 620/2017 Page 21

25. In the present case, the manner in which the school authorities have handled

the number of sexual harassment complaints received from young girls and their

parents, really shocks our conscience. Instead of forwarding such complaints to

the appropriate authorities for legal action, they felt satisfied by issuing a show-

cause notice calling upon the explanation probably preparing to take disciplinary

action against the appellant. They must have felt relieved when the appellant

submitted his resignation. This attitude of the school authorities encourages the

wrongdoers and discourages the Samaritans or the brave girls who takes the

courage to make complaints to school authorities. They took no legal actions on

the complaints of sexual harassment of young girls received from them rather

they brushed them under the carpet. It is also an incumbent duty of all to build a

protective net around the children who have suffered any physical or emotional

abuse. The lenient approach in such cases would certainly adversely affect the

psychology of the children who carries such sexual abuses of their childhood to

their teenage and then to their adulthood without having a satisfaction that the

person who had abused them had been punished as per the law.

26. Accordingly, we direct the school authorities to forward all the complaints

received by them relating to sexual harassment of the young girls to the police so

that necessary action can be taken on those complaints. We are aware that much

LPA 620/2017 Page 22 time has elapsed, but the offence still stare stark at our face and we cannot close

our eyes just by disposing this appeal. The school authorities are also directed to

extend their full cooperation with the police. The Court shall be informed about

the action taken within two weeks from today.

27. The appeal along with pending applications is disposed of in these terms,

with no order as to costs.

DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGE)

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE)

NOVEMBER 30, 2017 ss

LPA 620/2017 Page 23