Telangana High Court
The Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya ... vs K. Ranganath, Hyderabad. on 19 September, 2024
Author: Abhinnand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinnand Kumar Shavili
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
********
WRIT PETITION NO.2776 OF 2013
Between :
The Chairman Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Sangathan M/o HRD Govt of India, Sastry Bhawan,
New Delhi and others.
...Petitioners
and
K. Ranganath, Occ Music Teacher,
Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1 AFA Dundigal,
Saleemnagar Colony, Malakpet, Dilshuknagar,
Hyderabad.
...Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 19.09.2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINNAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : No
may be allowed to see the Judgments ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether their Lordship wish to : No
see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
AKS,J & LNA,J
WP No.2776 of 2013
2
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINNAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
+WRIT PETITION NO.2776 OF 2013
%19.09.2024
Between:
#
The Chairman Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Sangathan M/o HRD Govt of India, Sastry Bhawan,
New Delhi and others.
...Petitioners
Vs.
$ K. Ranganath, Occ Music Teacher,
Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1 AFA Dundigal,
Saleemnagar Colony, Malakpet, Dilshuknagar,
Hyderabad.
...Respondent
!Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Ajay Kumar Kulkarni
Counsel for the Respondent : Ms. M.S.Aishwarya,
standing counsel rep. Sri
K.R.K.V.Prasad for respondent
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1.Commissioner, K.V.Sangathan and others vs. Rathin Pal (Criminal Appeal
arising out of SLP (C) No.4627 of 2008)
2. (1995) 2 SCC 474
AKS,J & LNA,J
WP No.2776 of 2013
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO.2776 of 2013
ORDER :
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated
23.11.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, 'Tribunal').
2. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Kulkarni learned standing
counsel for petitioners and Ms. M.S.Aishwarya, learned
counsel representing Sri K.R.K.V.Prasad, learned counsel for
respondent on record.
3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that respondent was
working as Music Teacher at Kendriya Vidyalaya-1, Air force
Academy Dundigal, Hyderabad. While so, complaints have
been received from girl students and parents that respondent
was misbehaving in objectional manner with the students in
classrooms. Considering seriousness of the allegations, 4th
petitioner placed the respondent under suspension on
09.03.2009 and on review, extended the suspension for further
AKS,J & LNA,J
period on 17.07.2009. Petitioner-institution constituted an
inquiry consisting of four lady teachers and one male teacher
of the 5th petitioner-institution to inquire into the complaints
made against the respondent. The Committee in its preliminary
report dated 05.03.2009 found that the contents of complaints
as prima facie correct and on the said preliminary report, 4th
petitioner vide order dated 09.03.2009 ordered summary
enquiry by a Committee consisting of Educational Officer,
KVS, Hyderabad as its Convenor and the Principal, K.V.Picket
and the Post Graduate Teacher, Air Force Academy KV No.1 as
its members. The respondent appeared in the said enquiry. The
Committee conducted summary enquiry on 21.04.2009 and
submitted its report on 07.05.2009. In the said report, the
Committee prima facie found that the respondent was guilty of
moral turpitude involving in immoral sexual behaviour with
girl students of the said school. Basing on the said report and
material on record, the 3rd petitioner decided to proceed
against the respondent in terms of Article 81(B) of the
Education Code of Kendriya Vidyalaya (for short, 'Education
AKS,J & LNA,J
Code') and a Memorandum was issued accordingly on
06.08.2009. The respondent submitted representation on
07.09.2009 to the show-cause notice and the competent
authority, on due consideration of representation and material
on record, terminated the respondent from services vide order
dated 30.11.2009 in terms of Article 81(B) of the Education
Code.
4. Aggrieved by the termination order dated 30.11.2009,
respondent preferred an appeal on 19.12.2009 before the 2nd
respondent and also approached the Tribunal by filing
O.A.No.1111 of 2009 and the said O.A. was disposed of with
direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal
filed by the respondent by duly granting personal hearing.
Accordingly, the appellate authority granted personal hearing
and respondent appeared before the appellate authority on
06.04.2010. The appellate authority vide order dated 03.05.2010
rejected the appeal, confirming the order of the 3rd respondent
dated 30.11.2009.
AKS,J & LNA,J
5. The respondent herein filed O.A.No.521 of 2010
challenging the order dated 03.05.2010 passed by the appellate
authority and the Tribunal vide its order dated 23.11.2012
disposed of the O.A.No.521 of 2010 by directing the petitioners
herein to take back the respondent into service with the
observation that the period from the date of removal till the
date of taking back has to be treated as dies-non and the
respondent shall not be entitled for any emoluments for that
period. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2012, the
petitioner-institution filed the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that Tribunal
committed serious error in holding that the acts of misconduct
of the respondent, as complained by the girl students, do not
amount to sexual misbehaviour and it is not a case of
termination of service of the respondent under Article 81 (B) of
the Education Code, though the acts may attract punishment.
He further contended that Article 81(B) of the Education Code
empowers the competent authority to terminate the services of
an employee for the guilt of immoral behaviour towards the
AKS,J & LNA,J
students. He also referred to Article 81(B) of the Education
Code elaborately and contended that the procedure prescribed
for holding an enquiry for imposing major penalty in
accordance with the Central Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short, 'the Rules,1965') is
applicable to the employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
and the same is dispensed with provided that Commissioner
is of the opinion that it is not expedient to hold a regular
enquiry on account of embarrassment to student or his
guardians or such other practical difficulties.
7. He further contended that allegations made against the
respondent are of serious in nature; that the Committee,
comprising of four lady teachers and one male teacher
constituted to inquire into the contents of the complaints of the
girl students, in its report categorically found the contents of
complaints as prima facie correct. Therefore, the Commissioner
invoked Article 81(B) of the Education Code and has rightly
ordered for summary inquiry by duly constituted a committee
of senior officials and the said Committee after due inquiry,
AKS,J & LNA,J
submitted its report and found respondent prima facie guilty of
moral turpitude involving immoral sexual behaviour towards
girl students of the school. Therefore, summary enquiry
conducted under Article 81(B) of the Education Code is proper
and there is no irregularity and in fact, Article 81(B) stipulates
that as far as possible a summary inquiry being conducted in
case of any complaint of immoral behaviour by a teacher
towards the students. He further contended that Tribunal
committed error in passing the impugned order on
sympathetic grounds without considering the seriousness of
the complaints made against the respondent and the Tribunal
also came to erroneous conclusion that it is not a case where
applicant has to be terminated under Article 81(B) of the
Education Code and prayed this Court to set aside the
impugned order and pass necessary orders.
8. To support his contention, learned counsel for petitioners
relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Commissioner, K.V.Sangathan and others vs. Rathin Pal.
(Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (C ) No.4627 of 2008).
AKS,J & LNA,J
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent had
contended that the Tribunal by taking into consideration the
facts and circumstances of the case had come to right
conclusion that the case of the respondent does not fall within
the ambit of Article 81(B) of the Education Code for ordering
termination. It is further contended that as per Article 81(B),
the Commissioner is required to pass speaking order, however,
no such order has been passed in the present case and further,
the Committee constituted to conduct summary inquiry has
not investigated into the alleged immoral behaviour on the
respondent. Learned counsel for respondent further contended
that respondent rendered 22 years of service and his services
were terminated by the appellant-institution without any
terminal benefits except three months notice salary and thereby
the respondent lost about 13 years of service and further he
could not join in any employment after termination. It is
further contended that in the absence of any full-fledged
disciplinary inquiry, the report given by the committee basing
on summary inquiry cannot be considered and the
AKS,J & LNA,J
observations of the Committee are not based on any evidence
and material and that the expression 'sexual misbehaviour' is
used only to cause prejudice to the respondent.
10. Learned counsel for respondent has relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Surjit Ghosh vs.
Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank
and others1 and contended that on account of deprivation of
remedy of appeal which is a substantive right, the order of
appeal dated 03.05.2010 is null and void in law and thereby the
initial order of termination is also non-est in the eye of law and
finally, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
11. Perusal of the termination order dated 30.11.2009 shows
that Commissioner has recorded reasons for summary inquiry
and exercised the powers under Article 81(B) of Education
Code. The Commissioner further observed that it is not
expedient to hold a regular enquiry under the Rules, 1965 as it
would cause serious embarrassment to the girl students or
their guardians and further observed that holding of regular
(1995) 2 SCC 474
AKS,J & LNA,J
enquiry is not expedient because of the tender age of the girl
students as their safety and security have to be protected by
preventing their exposure to the tardy process of cross-
examination in the enquiry.
12. A teacher is supposed to nurture the talent of the
students and guide them academically as well as morally since
the young students are future of the nation. There is no
necessity or purpose for the respondent to make the girl
students to sit on his lap and also touching them
inappropriately. One of the girl students specifically stated that
the teacher made her to sit on his lap and touched on her
stomach, chest, etc., which is highly inappropriate and
objectionable. Further, commenting the girl and boy students
when they were walking together as wife and husband is
objectionable on the part of the respondent and it also amounts
to polluting the minds of the young students. Despite these
acts of the respondent, the Tribunal has come to erroneous,
improper conclusion that the acts of the respondent do not
amount to sexual misbehaviour and only be termed as
AKS,J & LNA,J
abnormal behaviour. This Court is unable to agree with the
observations of the Tribunal.
13. It is further relevant to note that in case of serious
allegations of sexual misbehaviour, passing an order on
sympathetic grounds by the Tribunal is improper and
unsustainable. It is also relevant to note that except alleging
that no proper enquiry was conducted, no material or evidence
is placed by the respondent to disprove the allegations levelled
against him.
14. The facts and circumstances in Surjit Ghosh (supra),
relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent, and the
facts in the present case are different and therefore, the same
has no application to the present case.
15. In considered opinion of this Court, the observation of
the Tribunal that it is not a case where the respondent has to be
terminated under Article 81(B) of the Education Code, is
erroneous and contrary to the material placed on record.
AKS,J & LNA,J
16. In the light of above discussion, the impugned order
dated 23.11.2023 in O.A.No.521 of 2010 is set aside. However,
considering the length of service of 22 years rendered by the
respondent, respondent may make application for
compassionate allowance, if rules and regulations of the
petitioner-institution permit the same and on such application
being filed, the petitioner-institution shall consider the same
and pass necessary orders expeditiously.
17. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 19.09.2024
kkm
