Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Dr Paras Nath Ram vs Union Of India on 14 May, 2025
CAT ,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00263 of 2018 Dr. Paras Nath Ram Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
Original Application No.332/00263/2018
Order reserved on: 26.03.2025
Order pronounced on: 14.05.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Dr. Paras Nath Ram, Son of Late Shiv Poojan Ram, aged about 63
years, resident of A-1/12, Sector L, LDA Colony, Aashiana, Kanpur
Road, Lucknow.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Rohit Verma
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Government of India, New Delhi -110001.
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional Area Shaheedjeet
Singh, Marg New Delhi-110016.
3. Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi-110001.
4. The Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sngathan, Room No. 116-
C Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
5. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional
Area, Shaheedjeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110016.
6. Deputy Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional
Office, Sector J, Aliganj, Lucknow.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Ms. Pushpila Bisht
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to dismissal from service, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
"(a) To issue an order quashing the order dated 24/25.7.2017 passed by the respondent No. 4 and the order dated 27/30/11.2015 passed by Page 1 of 17 CAT ,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00263 of 2018 Dr. Paras Nath Ram Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
the respondent No. 5, annexed as Annexure No. 1 and 2 to this application.
(b) To issue an order/direction to the respondents to release all the post retiral dues, which has not been paid to the applicant due to the impugned order along with interest of 18% from the date it was due to the applicant.
(c) To issue such other order/direction which may be deemed just and proper in the nature & circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant."
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant, while working as the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya CRPF Bijnaur Lucknow, was proceeded against departmentally for allegations of sexual harassment of girl students. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by a committee headed by the Assistant Commissioner, KVS on orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS, hereafter). Another committee by the name of Survey Committee was set up by the Chairman, Vidyalaya Management Committee which submitted its report on 19.02.2015. Thereafter, the Commissioner, KVS referred the matter to the Complaints Redressal Committee which, in its report dated 27.05.2015, found the applicant guilty of causing physical, mental and emotional pain and suffering to the young girl students. A show cause notice dated 19.06.2015 was issued to the applicant and, after considering his reply dated 09.07.2015, his service was terminated vide order dated 30.11.2015 under Article 81(B) of the Education Code for KVS. The applicant's appeal dated 12/17.01.2016 came to be rejected by the appellate authority under Article 81(C) of the Education Code vide order dated 25.07.2017. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3.1 The applicant has raised several objections to the departmental proceedings. His first objection is that the proceedings were taken up without any written complaint from the students/parents as required Page 2 of 17 CAT ,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00263 of 2018 Dr. Paras Nath Ram Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. under the guidelines dated 24.01.2002 for initiating action under Article 81 (B) of the Education Code.
3.2 The second objection is that the head of the preliminary enquiry committee, i.e., Assistant Commissioner (K S Yadav) was included as a member of the Complaint Redressal Committee thereby introducing bias and vitiating the enquiry proceedings conducted by the Complaint Redressal Committee. In support, Institute of Chartered Accountant of India vs L K Ratna AIR 1987 SC 71, Rattan Lal Sharma vs Managing Committee AIR 1993 SC 2155, Tilak Chand Mangatram Obhan vs Kamla Prasad Shukla &Ors and State of Uttaranchal vs Kharak Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236 et al have been cited. 3.3 Thirdly, it is contended that neither the names of the girl students who had made allegations against him nor their statements were provided to him.
3.4 Fourthly, the applicant contends that the Complaint Redressal Committee held a meeting on 28.04.2015 at New Delhi without intimating the applicant rendering the proceedings conducted on that date behind his back non est in law.
3.5 Fifthly, it is contended that dispensing with a regular enquiry and conduct of summary enquiry itself is illegal. 4.1 Per contra, the respondents state that Shri P K Dixit, a parent, had given written complaint. It is stated that based on the information that inappropriate behavior was being meted out to girl students of KVS, the preliminary enquiry was conducted recording statements of girl students which indicated sexual harassment of the girl students of class 3rd to 8th by the applicant. It is on the basis of the girl students' statements that the matter was entrusted to the Complaints Redressal Committee to hold summary enquiry.
Page 3 of 17CAT ,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00263 of 2018 Dr. Paras Nath Ram Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 4.2 The summary enquiry was conducted by the Complaints Redressal Committee headed by Joint Commissioner who included the Assistant Commissioner (Shri K S Yadav) in the committee. It is contended that inclusion of Shri K S Yadav does not violate the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Vishakha case. It is also contended that the issue of bias was never raised by the applicant in his reply dated 16.04.2015 to the Complaints Redressal Committee, in his reply dated 09.07.2015 to the summary enquiry report supplied to him vide memorandum dated 19.06.2015, and in his appeal dated 12.01.2016.It is averred that the applicant did not take the plea of bias at the inception and he cannot challenge the constitution of the Complaints Redressal Committee and take the plea of bias at this stage as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal vs State of J&K (1995) 3 SCC 486 and by Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in Dr Rehana Kausar vs UT of J&K & Ors 2022 SCC Online J &K 990.
4.3 It is averred that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avinash Nagra vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (Civil Appeal No. 14526 of 1996) has laid down that the procedure adopted would require that a show cause notice containing the charges and the facts in support of the charges together with the statements recorded in the summary enquiry along with a copy of the summary enquiry would have to be given to the charged person and such charged person would be given an opportunity to submit his explanation, without having the right to cross examine the witnesses. It is stated that the charges, the facts in support of the charges, the statements recorded in the summary enquiry and the report of summary enquiry were provided to the applicant vide the show cause notice dated 19.06.2015. Page 4 of 17 CAT ,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00263 of 2018 Dr. Paras Nath Ram Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 4.4 The respondents contend that the meeting of the Complaints Redressal Committee was conducted on 28.04.2015 as per the coda procedure. It was not necessary to inform the applicant of the meeting with the girl student/her parent due to safety and security reasons. 4.5 It is averred that in cases involving immoral behavior of a teacher towards a girl student, considering the tender age of the girl students and their safety and security and the serious embarrassment which would be caused to them and their parents, the girl students are required to be protected by preventing their exposure to the process of cross examination. As such, holding of regular enquiry was dispensed with. In support, judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Ors vs Shri Babban Prasad Yadav (SLP No. 9808/2002) and KVS vs Rathin Pal (SLP No. 4627/2008) have been cited. It is stated that the summary enquiry found the allegations of immoral sexual behavior with the girl students proved.
5. We have heard both the parties.
6.1 It is noted that KVS is an autonomous body as declared under Article 1 (i) of its Education Code:
"(i) Sangathan means the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, an autonomous body (registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, XXI of 1860) set up by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, to establish, administer and manage the Kendriya Vidyalayas."
(emphasis supplied) 6.2 The employees of KVS are governed by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 [CCS (CCA) Rules, hereafter] in terms of Article 80 of the Education Code:
"Article 80 (a) -All the employees of Kendriya Vidyalayas, Regional Offices, ZIETs and the Headquarters of the Sangathan shall be subject to the disciplinary control of the Sangathan and the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, as amended from time to time, will apply mutatis mutandis Page 5 of 17 CAT ,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00263 of 2018 Dr. Paras Nath Ram Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
to all members of the staff of the Sangathan except when otherwise decided. (In the above Rules, for the words "Government Servant" wherever they occur, the words "Employee of Kendriya Vidyalaya/Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan," shall be substituted)."
(emphasis supplied) 6.3 In case of an employee found guilty of immoral behavior towards students, the Commissioner KVS can terminate his service after a summary enquiry, as far as possible by the Complaints Redressal Committee, dispensing with the procedure prescribed under CCS (CCA) Rules for imposing major penalty for reasons to be recorded in terms of the Article 81 (B) of the Education Code:
"(B) TERMINATION OF SERVICES OF AN EMPLOYEE FOUND GUILTY OF IMMORAL BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS STUDENTS Where the Commissioner is satisfied after such a summary inquiry 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 inquiry for imposing major penalty in accordance with CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as applicable to the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, shall be dispensed with, provided that the Commissioner is of the opinion that it is not expedient to hold regular inquiry 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 inquiry 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."
(emphasis supplied) 6.4 Article 160 of the Education Code provides for setting up of the Complaints Redressal Committees:
"Article 160. CELL FOR REDRESSAL OF SEXUAL HARRASSMENT COMPLAINTS BY WOMAN EMPLOYEES :
In terms of the guidelines and the norms laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Government of India's decision no. 25 under Rule 3-C of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, Page 6 of 17 CAT ,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00263 of 2018 Dr. Paras Nath Ram Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1964 as applicable to the employees of the KVS, a Committee shall be constituted at the KVS (HQ) and one each in all Regional Offices for the redressal of complaints of the woman employees alleging sexual harassment."
(emphasis supplied) 7.1 In the instant case, proceedings were taken up against the applicant under Article 81 (B) of the Education Code providing for summary enquiry which can be entrusted to the Complaints Redressal Committee constituted under Article 160 of the Education Code. 7.2 Before delving into the contentions of the parties, it would be useful to appreciate certain salient provisions and their background having a bearing on the present controversy. Firstly, it is noted that Article 81 (B) of the KVS's Education Code is a special provision with limited scope confined to cases of moral turpitude involving sexual offence or immoral sexual behavior of a KVS employee towards any student. This special provision dispenses with the procedure for enquiry for imposing major penalty under the CCS (CCA) Rules and allows summary enquiry if it is not expedient to hold regular enquiry on account of embarrassment to the students or their guardians for reasons to be recorded in writing. Further, this provision allows termination of the employee if found guilty on the basis of such summary enquiry to be conducted by Complaints Redressal Committee referred to in the Note below Article 81 (B).
7.3 Secondly, it is noted that the concept of Complaints Redressal Committee itself owes its origin to the seminal judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishakha & Ors vs State of Rajasthan & Ors AIR 1997 SC 3011 which led to amendment of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 with addition of rule 3-C in the year 1998 declaring sexual harassment of working women as misconduct [The CCS (Conduct) Rules are applicable mutatis mutandis to the employees Page 7 of 17 CAT ,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00263 of 2018 Dr. Paras Nath Ram Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. of KVS under Article 59 of the KVS Education Code]. Further, a proviso below rule 14(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules was added in the year 2004 for treatment of the Complaints Committee as the Inquiring Authority under that rule. Vishakha (supra) was followed by Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors vs Union of India & Ors AIR ONLINE 2012 SC 632 which spurred promulgation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013(2013 Act, hereafter) mandating the employers to constitute Internal Complaints Committee under section 4 thereof. Mention also must be made of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act, hereafter) which came into effect from 14.11.2012 to safeguard children from sexual abuse and sexual offences, including sexual harassment. The POCSO Act applies to children below 18 years of age, the cohort to which most students of KVS belong to.
7.4 We now turn to the points of controversy in the following paragraphs.
8.0 Written Complaint 8.1 Now, coming to the first objection raised by the applicant regarding absence of any written complaint in terms of the guidelines dated 24.01.2002, it is noted that the said guidelines stipulate thus:
"If any complaint related to immoral sexual behavior towards girl students is received, the following steps should be taken immediately at Vidyalaya level and RO level.
Vidyalaya Level
1. A written complaint may be obtained from the students/parents. ..."
(emphasis supplied) 8.2 It is noted that there is no requirement of a written complaint under Article 81 (B) of the KVS Education Code. The guidelines dated 24.01.2002 do provide for obtaining written complaint from the student Page 8 of 17 CAT ,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00263 of 2018 Dr. Paras Nath Ram Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. or her parents. It is observed that the guidelines dated 24.01.2002 are in aid of implementation of Article 81 (B). They cannot supplant Article 81 (B) itself which does not mandate existence of a written complaint. Further, the word used in the guidelines dated 24.01.2002 in regard to obtaining written complaint is 'may' and not 'shall'. It has to be kept in mind that the girl students in the instant case belonged to class III to VIII and they were minor, i.e., below 18 years of age. It is also relevant to note that while there is a provision (section 9) under the 2013 Act for submitting written complaint by women, in the POCSO Act there is provision for reporting of offences (section 19) and there is an entire Chapter (Chapter VI) devoted to recording statement of the child. 8.3 The position which emerges is that what is of essence is to take notice of a report of moral turpitude involving sexual offence or exhibition of immoral sexual behaviour towards any student on part of KVS employee and the recording of statement of the minor student. The written complaint is not a mandatory requirement and the presence, or absence, of such written complaint has no bearing on the legal validity of the proceedings involving minor girl student under Article 81 (B) of the Education Code, regardless of the provision contained in the guidelines dated 24.01.2002 which has only an advisory value, in our opinion.
8.4 In the case at hand, the statements of girl students were recorded at the preliminary enquiry stage as well as the summary enquiry stage. This being the position, the presence or absence of written complaint of the girl students is immaterial to the legal validity of the proceedings against the applicant under Article 81 (B). 9.0 Inclusion of person heading the preliminary enquiry in the Complaints Redressal Committee Page 9 of 17 CAT ,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00263 of 2018 Dr. Paras Nath Ram Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 9.1 The next issue before us is whether the inclusion of the head of the preliminary enquiry (K S Yadav, Assistant Commissioner) in the Complaints Redressal Committee which conducted the departmental enquiry vitiated the latter.
9.2 The purpose of preliminary enquiry is to collect facts to determine whether regular enquiry is required as stated in the following terms by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah vs Union of India 1964 AIR 1854:
"In short a preliminary enquiry is for the purpose of collection of facts in regard to the conduct and work of a government servant in which he may or may not be associated so that the authority concerned may decide whether or not to subject the servant concerned to the enquiry necessary under Article 311 for inflicting one of the three major punishments mentioned therein."
(emphasis supplied) 9.3 In the normal course, the officer conducting the preliminary inquiry is not associated with the regular enquiry as he may have formed an opinion during the preliminary enquiry and if the same officer were to be involved in conducting the regular inquiry, there would be a potential for bias or prejudice against the employee. It is also well settled that the material gathered in the preliminary enquiry cannot be used in the regular enquiry unless it is made part of the charge sheet thereby affording the charged officer the opportunity to rebut such material as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nirmala S Jhala vs State of Gujarat & Anr AIR 2013 SC 1513:
"22....There is nothing on record to show that either the preliminary enquiry report or the statements recorded therein, particularly, by the complainant/accused or Shri C.B. Gajjar, advocate, had been exhibited in regular inquiry. In absence of information in the chargesheet that such report/statements would be relied upon against the appellant, it was not permissible for the Enquiry Officer or the High Court to rely upon the same. Natural justice is an inbuilt and inseparable ingredient of fairness and reasonableness. Strict adherence to the principle is required, whenever civil consequences follow up, as a result of the order passed. Natural justice is a universal justice. In certain factual circumstances even non-observance of the rule will itself result in prejudice. Thus, this principle is of supreme importance. (Vide: S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136; D.K. Yadav v. JMA Page 10 of 17 CAT ,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00263 of 2018 Dr. Paras Nath Ram Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
Industries Ltd., (1983) 3 SCC 259; and Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of U.P. &Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 539)."
(emphasis supplied) 9.4 The procedure in respect of the Complaints Redressal Committee (or the Internal Complaints Committee) is on adifferent footing under rule 14 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules extracted below:
"14 (2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Government servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint under this rule or under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the truth thereof.
Provided that where there is a complaint of sexual harassment within the meaning of rule 3 C of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the complaints Committee established in each ministry or Department or Office for inquiring into such complaints, shall be deemed to be the inquiring authority appointed by the disciplinary authority for the purpose of these rules and the Complaints Committee shall hold, if separate procedure has not been prescribed for the complaints committee for holding the inquiry into the complaints of sexual harassments, the inquiry as far as practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in these rules."
(emphasis supplied) It is evident from the above that the Complaints Committee is required to perform the role of collection of the facts relating to the complaint as well as the enquiring authority. There is no bar for the Complaints Committee to conduct preliminary enquiry to collect facts and then conduct the regular enquiry to record its findings after hearing both the sides; in fact it might be desirable to do so more often than not. There is an important caveat, however, in that the Complaints Committee should not reach a definitive conclusion regarding the conduct of the employee complained against at this preliminary stage for the reason that he has not been afforded an opportunity to defend himself.
9.5 The aspect of the instant case that requires examination is that the collection of facts having been accomplished through a separately conducted preliminary enquiry, the head of the preliminary enquiry Page 11 of 17 CAT ,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00263 of 2018 Dr. Paras Nath Ram Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. committee was included in the Complaints Redressal Committee. A perusal of the preliminary enquiry report dated 06.02.2014 brings out that the statements of girl students belonging to classes III to XII were obtained. There was no complaint from the girls of classes IX to XII. However, the girls of classes III to VIII made statements imputing sexual harassment by the applicant. The preliminary enquiry committee concluded that the applicant was sexually harassing the girl students of classes III to VIII. In view of the specific finding recorded in the preliminary enquiry on the applicant's conduct, it was not permissible, in our view, to include the head of the preliminary enquiry committee (K S Yadav, Assistant Commissioner) in the Complaints Redressal Committee for conducting the summary enquiry as his inclusion created a potential for bias.
9.6 The respondents point out that the applicant did not raise the issue of bias against the head of the preliminary enquiry committee (K S Yadav, Assistant Commissioner) at any stage in the departmental proceedings.This, however, does not detract from the principle that justice must not only be done it also must be seen to be done. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aureliano Fernandes vs State of Goa AIR 2023 SC 2485:
"40. The significant role played by procedural fairness in the backdrop of internalising the principles of natural justice into the Constitution cannot be overstated..."
(emphasis supplied) 10.0 Non supply of names and statements of girl students 10.1 The applicant's contention that the names and the statements of the girl students were not supplied to him has been refuted by the respondents stating that the statements recorded in the summary enquiry and the report of summary enquiry were provided to the applicant vide the show cause notice dated 19.06.2015. Page 12 of 17 CAT ,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00263 of 2018 Dr. Paras Nath Ram Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 10.2 A perusal of the applicant's reply dated 09.07.2015 to the show cause notice dated 19.06.2015 brings out that the applicant has himself mentioned the names of girl students and their statements in paragraphs 15D & E, and 17, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 23; in paragraphs 20 and 24, the applicant mentions that names of girl students were not visible on some statements. The applicant's contention that the statements of girl students were not supplied is not borne out from the material on record.
11.0 Proceedings at New Delhi without applicant's participation 11.1 Admittedly, the Complaints Redressal Committee met at New Delhi on 28.04.2015 to meet the parent (Shri Dixit) of a former girl student who provided a video recording of his conversation with the applicant regarding the applicant's misbehavior with his daughter. The applicant contends that the proceedings conducted behind his back at New Delhi are illegal.
11.2 In this context, it would be advantageous to refer to certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court which illuminate the controversy at hand. In Avinash Nagra (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to observe:
"Under those circumstances, the question arises: whether the girl and her room-mates should be exposed to the cross-examination and harassment and further publicity? In our considered view, the Director has correctly taken the decision not to conduct any enquiry exposing the students and modesty of the girl and to terminate the services of the appellant by giving one month's salary and allowances in lieu of notice as he is a temporary employee under probation....In the circumstances, it is very hazardous to expose young girls to tardy process of cross- examination. Their statements were supplied to the appellant and he was given opportunity to controvert the correctness thereof. Under those circumstances, the conduct of the appellant is unbecoming of a teacher much less a loco parentis and, therefore, dispensing with regular enquiry under the rules and denial of cross-examination are legal and not vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice."
(emphasis supplied) Page 13 of 17 CAT ,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00263 of 2018 Dr. Paras Nath Ram Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 11.3 The observations made in Avinash Nagra (supra) were taken note of and further amplified by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Ors vs Babban Prasad Yadav & Anr (Civil Appeal No. 4247 of 2003) on 02.05.2003 in following terms:
"9. It is true that the Court in Avinash Nagra (1997) 2 SCC 534 has made the following observations:
"In our considered view, the Director has correctly taken the decision not to conduct any enquiry exposing the students and modesty of the girl and to terminate the services of the appellant by giving one month's salary and allowances in lieu of notice as he is a temporary employee under probation."
However, the Court goes on to say:
"In the circumstances, it is very hazardous to expose the young girls to tardy process of cross-examination."
10. The last observation was not based on the fact that the employee in that case was a probationer at all. Indeed the embarrassment to the girl student would hardly be different merely because the alleged officer is a permanent employee. Besides, under Article 311(2) itself an enquiry may be dispensed with under certain circumstances. We have no doubt that those circumstances may include a situation as indicated in the rule of the institution as mentioned hereinbefore."
(emphasis supplied) 11.4 It follows from Avinash Nagra (supra) and Babban Prasad Yadav (supra) that dispensing with regular enquiry and cross examination in cases involving allegations of sexual harassment of girl student by a teacher or employee of the educational institution is permissible to avoid embarrassment to her. This being the position, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary for the delinquent official to be invited to participate in the enquiry proceeding where the statement of the girl student or her parents is to be recorded. It is sufficient for the observance of principles of natural justice if the statement so recorded is supplied to the delinquent official to enable him to advance his defence.
Page 14 of 17 CAT ,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00263 of 2018 Dr. Paras Nath Ram Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 11.5 In conclusion, no prejudice has been caused to the applicant for not inviting him to participate in the enquiry proceeding conducted on 28.04.2015 at New Delhi by the Complaints Redressal Committee. 12.0 Conduct of summary enquiry in place of regular enquiry 12.1 In the instant case, proceedings were taken up against the applicant under Article 81 (B) of the Education Code providing for summary enquiry. The applicant's contention is that regular enquiry could not have been dispensed with by the respondents. 12.2 We have noted in paragraph 7.2 above that Article 81 (B) of the KVS's Education Code is a special provision with limited scope confined to cases of moral turpitude involving sexual offence or immoral sexual behavior of a KVS employee towards any student. This special provision dispenses with the procedure for enquiry for imposing major penalty under the CCS (CCA) Rules and allows summary enquiry if it is not expedient to hold regular enquiry on account of embarrassment to the students or their guardians for reasons to be recorded in writing. Further, this provision allows termination of the employee if found guilty on the basis of such summary enquiry to be conducted by Complaints Redressal Committee referred to in the Note below Article 81 (B).
12.3 It is observed that certain relationships involve a presumption of high trust and are also power asymmetrical. Teacher student relationship is one among such relationships. The burden of appropriate behaviour devolves primarily on the teacher to enable fulfilment of the goal of education. The responsibility of the teacher acquires more depth and sensitivity if the student is minor. There is an additional dimension to reckon with if the student is a girl student. To deal with allegations of inappropriate conduct in such a special relationship, devising a special procedure under Article 311(2) of the Page 15 of 17 CAT ,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00263 of 2018 Dr. Paras Nath Ram Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. Constitution is permissible, in our view, in keeping with the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babban Prasad Yadav (supra). We also note that the validity of Article 81 (B) of the KVS's Education Code has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Gokul vs UOI & Ors 2016 SCC Online Bom 3549:
"We are also not inclined to accept the argument of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that Article 81(B) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalaya is ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
(emphasis supplied)
13. The net result is that the objections raised by the applicant stand negated except the controversy relating to inclusion of the head of the preliminary enquiry committee (K S Yadav, Assistant Commissioner) for the reason that in the preliminary enquiry a definite finding was recorded against the applicant.
14.1 In view of the facts and circumstances above, in the interest of justice, the respondents are directed to constitute the Complaints Redressal Committee afresh which shall go through the material on record, and record its findings with an open mind. 14.2 The applicant shall be afforded the opportunity to represent against the findings of the Complaints Redressal Committee so constituted and the material relied on by it, and after considering the applicant's reply afresh, the competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in supersession of the order dated 30.11.2015. 14.3 The applicant shall be afforded opportunity to appeal against the order of the competent authority, and the appellate authority shall consider such appeal afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order in supersession of the order dated 25.07.2017.
Page 16 of 17
CAT ,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00263 of 2018 Dr. Paras Nath Ram Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 14.4 The above exercise shall be completed preferably within six months.
14.5 This OA is disposed of in the above terms.
14.6 Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.
14.7 The Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela
Waghela Date: 2025.05.14
16:10:43 +05'30'
Page 17 of 17