Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Binaya Kumar Das vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 14 November, 2025
1 O.A.260/00356 of 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00356 of 2022
Reserved on 13.11.2025 Pronounced on : 14.11.2025
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
Sri Binaya Kumar Das, aged about 61 years, S/o. Late
Dinabandhu Das of village - Chhamuja, PS-Jaleswar, Dist-
Balasore - presently residing at Flat No.-403, Moti
Apartment, Jagannath Prava Lane-8, Unit-IX, P.S. -
Kharavela Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda.
..... Applicant
-Versus-
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, represented through:-
1. Vice Chairman, Institutional Area, Sahid Jeet Singh
Marg, New Delhi-110016.
2. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Institutional Area, Sahid Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-
110 016.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Regional Office, Pragati Vihar Colony, Mancheswar,
Bhubaneswar-751 017, Dist-Khurda, Odisha.
4. Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Regional Office, Pragati Vihar Colony, Mancheswar,
Bhubaneswar-751 017, Dist-Khurda, Odisha.
5. Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1 (2nd shift), Unit-IX,
Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda, Odisha.
.....Respondents
For the Applicant : Mr. J.K. Rath, Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. H.K. Tripathy, Counsel
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera,
o=Central Administrative Tribunal
Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL,
Behera [email protected]
Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30'
2 O.A.260/00356 of 2022
O R D E R
SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):
This O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section, 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following prayers:
"In view of the facts stated above, the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash the order passed by the Opp. Party No.2 dated 28.06.2021 (A/11) communicated to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vide Annexure-11 to the Original Application and the order of the Appellate Authority passed by rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 27.04.2022 Annexure-14 to the writ application and the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to treat the petitioner to be continuing in service till the age of superannuation and the petitioner is entitled to all service benefits including the retirtual benefits since the petitioner has, in the meantime, reached the age of superannuation."
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as TGT (PCM) and joined on 30.10.1986 in KVS, Balco, M.P. Thereafter, he was promoted to the Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) (Chemistry) on 29.09.1995. While he was continuing as such, in the year 2011, he was transferred and posted to KVS No.1 (2nd Shift), BBSR, and Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 3 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 while continuing as such in KVS No.1 (2nd Shift), BBSR, an FIR was lodged by the father of a girl student in the said School alleging sexual abuse to his daughter reading in Class-XII of K.V.No.1. The applicant was taken to judicial custody by the order of the Sessions Judge, Khurda in P.S.Case No.24 dated 14.01.2016 which was converted to T.R.No.5/2016. Due to his arrest and detention in judicial custody beyond 48 hours, applicant was placed under deemed suspension with effect from 14.01.2016 vide order dated 18.01.2016. He was thereafter, released on bail vide order dated 11.02.2016. After his released he submitted representation to Respondent No.4 to allow him to resume his duty. Vide order dated 10.03.2016, Respondent No.2 revoked the suspension and posted him at K.V., Srikakulam. While the matter stood thus, applicant was directed to appear before the preliminary enquiry committee on 06.12.2016 for the allegation of sexual abuse to the victim girl which was the subject matter of criminal case in T.R.No.5/2016 pending before the Sessions Judge, Khurda. The appearance of the applicant before the Preliminary Inquiry Committee, was, however, deferred to 19.12.2016 on Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 4 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 the ground of illness of the applicant. The applicant appeared before the Inquiry Committee on 19.12.2016 and submitted that the matter is sub judice before Sessions Judge and his defence in the criminal case will be prejudiced in case his defence in the proceedings under contemplation is disclosed. It is stated by the applicant that on 23.12.2016(A/3) the Preliminary Inquiry Officer submitted report of the Preliminary Inquiry Committee holding as under:
"Preliminary inquiry under 81(B) of KVS Education code against Sh. Binaya Kumar Das, Ex. PGT (Chem.) of Kendriya Vidyalaya No-1, 2 shift, Bhubaneswar, presently posted at Kendriya Vidyalaya Srikakulam in connection with his alleged offense of sexual abuse to Ms. Anchal Dash, Ex-student of Class-XII (2015-16 Hatch) on 14.01.2016 while imparting her private tuition at her residence at Plot No-122 A, Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar.
CONCLUSIVE REPORT BY THE PRELIMINARY INQUIRY COMMITTEE On the basis of the complaints dated 14.01.2016 & 06.12.2016 along with video & audio clips from Mr. Umesh Prasad Dash F/O Ms. Anchal Dash, the police FIR at police station, Kharavel Nagar, Bhubaneswar, the Newspaper cutting dated 15.01.2016, the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 5 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 recorded statements of the complainants father- Mr. Umesh Prasad Dash, his wife-Smt. Sarita Dash, the victun girl-Ms.Anchal Dash, the witnesses- Mr Bibhu Kalyan Panda & Mr. Soumyaranjan Pattanayak and the statement of Mrs. Kaberi Das, W/O-Mr. BK Das, the charged official Mr. B K Das and examination of facts by the inquiry committee, the following conclusion is rationally drawn.
1. It is proved that Mr. B K Das, Ex-PGT (Chem.) had indulged in private tuition despite being a teacher in KVS under HRD, Govt. Of India flouting the KVS code of conduct for teachers. He was imparting private tuition to the victim girl Ms. Anchal Dash, a student of Class:
XII Sc. (2015-16 Batch) in group tuition as well as individual tuition at her home at Plot No-122/A, Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar, flouting the article No-59 of KVS code of conduct for teachers.
2. The audio clip with the conversation between the victim girl Ms. Anchal Dash and the charged official Mr. B K Das, Ex- PGT (Chem.) clearly proves that he had planned his individual coaching to the girl at her home on the day of incident. According to her father Mr. Umesh Prasad Dash's complain his daughter found two miss calls on her telephone from Mr. BK Das on the day of incident and told her daughter to call Mr. B K Das. According to the audio clip, the girl Ms. Anchal Daslı rang up the teacher Mr. B K Das at 02.55 PM Mr. BK Das asked her about her studies and told her to come to him for tuition. She expressed her inability to go to him for tuition. Mr BK Das then agreed to come to her house Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 6 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 at 03.30 PM that day. Apart from this, Mr. B K Das referred to some past incident and asked Ms. Anchal Dash whether her mother was telling anything about him and whether everything was alright or not. This conversation indicates some objectionable behaviour of the teacher with the girl on some earlier day for which he was nervous and suspicious.
3. In all their complaints and statements on both the dates of hearing i.e on 06.12.2016 and 19.12.2016, the victim girl, her parents and the two witnesses have categorically told that the charged official Mr. B K Das was in the habit of exhibiting sexually abusive behaviour towards the victim girl for quite some days for which her parents had marked the "signs of absentmindedness coupled with depression and irritation in her". When her mother asked her daughter about her unusual behaviour, she confessed that Mr. BK Das was sexually harassing her in their places under the garb of imparting private coaching to her. In supplement of the same, her daughter laid bare the exact mode and manner in which she was being sexually harassed by the said teacher. From her statement, it was revealed that Mr. BK Das, Ex-PGT (Chem.) was repeatedly trying to touch the private body part of her body. The father's complaint dated 14.01.2016 in Odia language (translated in English by us) and complaint dated 06.12.2016 have been enclosed as Annexure; XXIV &XXV. The recorded statements of parents & victim girls Ms. Anchal Dash on 06.12.2016, their statements along with the statements of two witnesses have also Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 7 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 been annexed as Annexure-XXVI to XXIX.
4. The video clip also clearly shows the charged official Mr. B K Das seating on a sofa close to Ms. Anchal Dash, the victim girl, while imparting her individual private tuition at her home. During this period of individual private tuition, he is also seen moving his right hand at the back of her shoulder and touching her left arm twice and twisting her left cheek once. Mr. BK Das, Ex-PGT (Chem.) again touched her lower backside once. He also patted on her upper back, touched & twisted the left arm once more. Finally, he is seen moving his right hand in an abjectly objectionable way touching the lower back of the girl for about 08 seconds which made the victim girl very embarrassed after which the girl shouted twice calling her mother "Bou!" "Bou!" i.e (Mother!, Mother!). All these glimpses in the video clip clearly proves his misconduct of sexually abusive behaviour of moral turpitude of Mr. BK Das towards Ms. Anchal Dash.
5. Hence, the conduct of Mr. BK Dash, Ex-PGT (Chemistry), KV No 1, Bhubaneswar and presently PGT (Chemistry) at KV, Srikakulam was most unbecoming of a teacher of KVS on two serious grounds-Indulgence to Private Tuition and exhibiting undesirable şimmoral behaviour outraging the modesty of the victim girl. Hence, the complaints of sexual harassment committed by Sh. BK Dash to Ms. Anchal Dash, as lodged by her father Mr. Umesh Prasad Dash against Mr. BK Dash, are substantiated and proved apart from his Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 8 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 serious misconduct of indulgence to Private Tuition.
3. It is stated that thereafter, Respondent No.4 vide order dated 10.01.2017(A/4) directed the applicant to attend summary inquiry on 23.01.2017. There being no other alternative, the applicant approached this Tribunal in O.A.No.41 of 2017. This Tribunal vide order dated 20.01.2017 disposed of the said O.A. with direction to Respondent No.1 to consider the representation at his level and communicate the result thereof to the applicant. As an interim measure, it was directed that the summary inquiry may be kept in abeyance till the decision of Respondent No.1 is communicated to him. Complying with the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal, the Commissioner, KVS(Respondent No.2) passed order dated 23.02.2017 (A/6) rejecting the representation of the applicant stating as under:
"Whereas, Mr. Binya Kumar Das, PGT (Chemistry), KV No.1 (2nd Shift Bhubaneswar & presently working in KV Srikakulam was placed under deemed suspension with effect from 14.01.2016 vide order dt. 22.01.2016 issued by Dy. Commissioner. KVS RO, Bhubaneswar being the Disciplinary Authority, based on the information received from the Principal, Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 9 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 KV No.1, Bhubaneswar for his detention for a period exceeding more than 48 (forty eight) hours in connection with his arrest on 14.01.2016 by the police, Kharavela Nagar, Bhubaneswar in Case No, 24 dt 14.01.2016 U/s 254/354(A)/354(D) IPC, R/W Sec 8/12 POCSO Act.
Whereas, the deemed suspension of Mr. B.K. Das, PGT (Chem) was revoked by the Dy. Commissioner, KVS, RỒ, Bhubaneswar vide Order dt. 10.03.2016 without prejudice to further action under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and his headquarter was changed to KV, Srikakulam Whereas, the Principal & Preliminary Inquiry Officer vide order dt. 02.12.2016 was informed that a preliminary inquiry has been contemplated and set up by the Dy. Commissioner, KVS, RO, Bhubaneswar vide his letter dt. 23/24.11.2016 against Mr. Binaya Kumar Das, Ex PGT (Chem) of KV No.1 (2 Shift), Bhubaneswar & presently working in KV Srikalkulam regarding sexual abuse of Kum. Anchal Dash, Class- XII (2015-16) daughter of Mr. Umesh Prasad Das at her residence at Plot No 122 A. Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar while imparting private tuition in violation of para 19 of Article 59 or KVS Education code.
In the meanwhile, the OA No. 260/00041/2017 fled by Mr. Binaya Kumar Das, PGT (Chemistry), KV No 1 (2 Shift), Bhubaneswar (presently in KV, Srikakulam. Andhra Pradesh) was heard by the Hon'ble CAT, Cuttack Bench and passed order dated 20.01.2017 vide which OA No. 260/00041/2017 has disposed of with the following directions "After considering the points of view expressed by the Ld. Counsel for both the sides, I am of the opinion that the competent authorities i.e. Commissioner, KVS should first look into the grievance of the applicant as agitated in his representation dated 16.01.2017, if the representation is pending with him. Therefore, at this stage, without going into the merit of the matter, I dispose of this OA by directing Respondent No.1 to consider the aforesaid representation if filed and is still pending consideration at his level and communicate the result Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 10 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 thereof to the applicant by way of a well-reasoned order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order As an interim measure, it is directed that summary enquiry under Annexure A/B may be kept in abeyance till the decision of the respondent No.1 is communicated to the applicant.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, this OA is disposed of at the stage of admission Itself. No costs."
The points adduced by the appellant in his representation dated 16.01.2017 submitted by Sh. BK Das, PIT (Chemistry), KV, Srikakulam (Formerly working in KV No. 1 (2 shift, Bhubaneswar) are as under (in verbatim):
1. That pursuant to letter dated 23/24.11.2016 (as stated by the Principal), the Principal, KV No. 1 Bhubaneswar vide his office order No. dated 02.12.2016, directed me to appear and attend before the Preliminary Inquiry Committee on 06.12.2016 on the allegation of sexual abuse caused to one Kumari Anchal Des aged 17 i.e. much above the age of maturity, Class XII (2015-16) student at her residence (Plot No.122A, Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar).
2. That since the allegation of sexual abuse was the subject matter of Criminal Case vide T.R. No.5/2016 of the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar and the charges drawn pursuant to the FIR are under Sections 354/354A/453D IPC R/W Sec 8/12 FOCSO, I, on attending the Preliminary Enquiry on 19.12.2016(first day of Preliminary Inquiry scheduled to be held on 06.12.2016 was not attended due to illness), clearly and unambiguously deposed that the allegation on which the Preliminary Inquiry Committee was going to conduct the inquiry is subjudice in the learned Criminal court, I did not expose my defence except utterance of the words," the matter is subjudice".
3. That it is pertinent to submit and clearly that the incident which is alleged to have been occurred, that is far away from the truth and outside the school premises, in the residence of the complainant who filed Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 11 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 the FIR. in a false and fabricated manner with an ulterior motive basing upon which the police on 14.01.2016, arrested me vide P.S. Case No. 24/2016 and I was taken to judicial custody being denied bail at the initial stage of investigation by Hon'ble Sessions Judge Khurda Bhubaneswar but subsequently the same Judge after going through the record of investigation on its completion resulting submission of charge sheet and having regard to the nature of allegation released me on Bail vide order dated 11.02.2016 on merit.
4 That it is humbly submitted that I was placed under deemed suspension vide order dated 27.01.2016 w.e.f. 14.01.2016 on the ground of detention in judicial custody beyond 48 hours. Subsequently, the order of deemed suspension dated 14.01.2016 was revoked vide order dated 10.03.2016 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the case of B.K. Das, PGT(Chem) under deemed suspension came up for the review on the basis of interim order dated 11.02.2016 of the Hon'ble court of Sessions Judge Khurdha at Bhubaneswar in TR No. 5/2016. The suspension of B.K. Das along with the complete record was placed before the Suspension Review Committee in its meeting held on 24.02.2016 for review. On the basis of available records, the committee reviewed the suspension case of Mr. B.K. Das, PGT (Chemistry) and recommended that on the basis of record and present status of the case made available it is recommended that the suspension case of the B.K. Das may be revoked without prejudice to further action and he may be posted out on revocation of suspension At present I am continuing as Post Graduate Teacher (Chem) in KVS, Srikakulam under the administrative control of Dy. Commissioner, KVS, Bhubaneswar.
5. That I was optimistic that on the basis of my categorical submission before the Preliminary Inquiry Committee that the matter is subjudice, the Preliminary Inquiry Committee must have drawn the attention of the Authority that the inquiry could not proceed on. But to my great surprise vide order dated 10.01.2017 (received on 11.01.2017), it was decided to hold a summary inquiry on 23.01.2017 seemingly pursuant to Article 81 (B) of KVS Code. I beg to reiterate that the place of occurrence of the alleged incident is, admittedly, not inside the school campus of KV No.1 Bhubaneswar and that the aforesaid a Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 12 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 criminal case was foisted against me vide T.R./No. 5/2016 on the basis of the false and fabricated allegation as in the FR. In the meantime the charge sheet in the criminal case has been filed on the charges submitted in the earlier paragraph. The criminal proceeding in the learned Criminal Court is continuing for which I am preparing my defence in consultation with my counsel since I am absolutely innocent of the charges. In such premises it is not desirable nor acceptable to law that the Disciplinary Authority will subject me to a summary inquire on the self same charge. It amounts to coercing me to expose my defence in the domestic summary enquiry and will put my defence in the learned Criminal Court in peril and I will be highly prejudiced.
6 That the domestic inquiry and the criminal proceeding are grounded on same fact and witnesses (as learnt) are being same. It is also a fact that the allegations on which the summary inquiry would proceed and the criminal case are based on similar set of facts. The charge in the criminal case in of a grave nature which involves complicated question of law and facts. Hence it is legally tenable to recall the order of domestic summary inquiry. The order of the Authority to go ahead with the inquiry will coerce me to expose my defence in domestic front when the evidence in the Criminal Court is yet to be taken.
7. That Sir, otherwise also, the order of the Dy.
Commissioner, KVS, RO, Bhubaneswar to conduct the summary inquiry is contrary to the provisions of the Article4 81(B) of the KVS code.
Whereas, on going through contents of the representation submitted by Sh. B.K. Das, PGT (Chemistry), KV, Srikakulam (Formerly working in KV No. 1 (2 shift), Bhubaneswar, the following comments are offered by the Competent Disciplinary Authority on the submissions of the appellant-
1. Principal, KV No.1 (2 Shift), Bhubaneswar & Preliminary Inquiry officer vide office order dated 02.12.2016 informed Sh. B.K. Das, Ex-PGT (Chem), KV No 1 (2-Shift), Bhubaneswar to be present before the Preliminary Inquiry Committee in the Principal's chamber, KV No.l Bhubaneswar at 3.00 PM on 06 12.2016 regarding sexual abuse of Kum. Anchal Dash, Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 13 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 Class-X (2015-16) daughter of Mr. Umesh Prasad Das at her residence at Plot No. 122 A, Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar while imparting private tuition in violation of para-19 of Article 59 of KVS Education code. The preliminary inquiry is yet to be concluded, 2 The memorandum dt. 02.12.2016 issued by Preliminary Inquiry Officer clearly shows that it is not the only allegation against Shri B.K.Das, POT(Chem) for sexual abuse towards Kum. Anchal Das, Class-XII (2015-16) daughter of Mr. Umesh Prasad Das, but violation of para-19 of Article 59 of KVS Education code as he has been involved in imparting private tuition to the student at her residence at Plot No. 122 A. Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar.
3. The submissions of the Appellant are matter of record. Hence no comments required.
4. The Dy. Commissioner, KVS, RO, Bhubaneswar being the Appointing Authority & Disciplinary Authority vide order dt. 10.03.2016 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (C) of sub-rule (5) of Rule- 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 revoked the order dt. 22.01.2016 of suspension of Mr. B. K. Das, PGT (Chem) with immediate effect without prejudice to further action as per the rules,
5. After that a Preliminary Inquiry Committee has been set up by the Dy, Commissioner, KVS, RO, Bhubaneswar to conduct the preliminary inquiry into the alleged misbehavior of Mr. Binaya Kumar Das, Ex- POT (Chem) of KV No.1 (2 Shift), Bhubaneswar && presently working in KV Srikakulam for sexually abusing Kum. Anchal Dash, Clans-XII (2015-16) daughter of Mr. Umesh Prasad Das at her residence at Plot No. 122 A, Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar while imparting private tuition in violation of para-19 of Article-59 of KVS Education code,
6. As per DOPT-Office Memorandum No.11012/6/2007-Estt.A dated 01.08.2007, point No.3 clearly shows that if the charge in the criminal case is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. This will depend upon the nature of offence and the evidence and material collected against the Government servant during investigation or as Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 14 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 reflected in the charge-sheet. If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were kept pending on account of the pendency of the criminal case can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty, his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest, if the case so warrants
7. No comments required.
Now in view of the rules laid down by the DOPT, the undersigned being the competent Disciplinary Authority is of the view that the issues raised by Shri B.K. Das, POT (Chem) in his representation dated 16.01.2017 are not only baseless, but also a dilatory tactics for evading the inquiry proceedings against him at this stage.
Accordingly, the representation dated 16.01.2017 preferred by Shri B.K. Das, PGT (Chem) is disposed off with an advice to co-operate with the inquiry.
The order dated 20.01.2017 passed by the Hon'ble CAT Cuttack Bench in O.A. No.260/00041/2017 is thus, complied with"
4. It is stated that the authority thereafter passed another order dated 08.03.2017(A/7) to conduct the summary enquiry on 14.03.2017 at KV No.3, BBSR, whereby the applicant was advised to cooperate with the inquiry. Aggrieved with this, the applicant approached this Bench in O.A. No.137 of 2017 which was disposed of on 06.02.2019 with the following directions:
"13. As is apparent, in pursuance of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the DOP&T has issued Office Memorandum Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 15 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 No.11012/06/2007-Estt.A dated 01.08.2007 regarding holding of departmental proceedings during pendency of the criminal case and from this, it is luculent that there is no bar in simultaneous proceedings of criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings though separately, subject to fulfillment of the ingredients as quoted in (ii) and (iii) of Para-12 above. At the same time, the whole purpose of resuming departmental during pendency of criminal case cannot be brushed aside. The purpose is that if the employee is found not guilty, his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest. Viewed from this angle, order dated 23.02.2017 (A/11) passed by the Respondent No.1 in pursuance of the direction of this Tribunal in O.A.No.41 of 2017 which is impugned in this O.A. calls for no interference."
5. It is stated that being aggrieved with the above order, of this Tribunal, he approached the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P. (C ) No.4226 of 2020. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 11.06.2021 passed the following order:-
"3. The Court notes that after an order is passed pursuant to the show cause notice in the disciplinary enquiry, the Petitioner will not be remediless and can seek appropriate remedies, if such order is adverse to him. There is no case at this stage for this Court to interfere.
4. Consequently, leaving it open to the Petitioner to urge all the points raised in the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 16 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 present writ petition at the appropriate stage after an order is passed in the disciplinary inquiry, the Court declines to interfere in the writ petition and dismisses it in the above terms. The Interim order dated 11th February 2020 is vacated."
6. It is further stated that the criminal proceeding initiated against the applicant was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO) Bhubaneswar (TR No.5 of 2016 arising out of Kharabelanagar P.S. Case No.24 dated 14.01.2016 ) vide judgment dated 30.09.2021. The judgment of the Learned Sessions Judge is quoted as hereunder:-
"5 In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses in all, of whom P.W.1 is the complainant; P.W.2 is the victim; P.W.3 & P.W.4 are mother and brother of the victim respectively; and P. W.5 is the I.O. No evidence has been led on behalf of the defence.
6. At the outset, it is profitable to scan the evidence of the victim, examined as P.W.2. After going through the same, an irresistible conclusion is arrived at that what has been deposed by P.W.2 is nothing but an empty and meaningless gesture towards her ordeal that is alleged to have been inflicted by the accused in groping and touching her inappropriately, demanding sexual favours, if any. In her evidence, P.W.2 has not uttered a single word against the accused that anything of this sort, as alleged, was done with her. According to her, on 14.01.2016, the accused had come to their residence to clear her doubts and during discussion over a topic, there was a difference of opinion between her and the accused, for which there was a shout. She denied to have remembered what had happened with her on the date of occurrence and what she had stated before the police.Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 17 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 P.W.2 has proved her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. before the Magistrate vide Ext.6, but she failed to remember what she had stated before the Magistrate. In view of such evidence, P.W.2 was declared hostile and leading questions were put to her by the prosecution in terms of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, but nothing fruitful is elicited from her mouth relating to the alleged incident. In her cross- examination by defence, P.W.2 has stated that on the date of occurrence, while clearing her doubts, the accused put some questions to her and as she could not answer the same, he got annoyed, which was beyond her tolerance following which she cried and hearing her cry, her parents came to her study room and there was exchange of hot words between her parents and the accused, hearing which their neighbours reached there. As such, no iota of evidence is forthcoming from the evidence of the victim (P.W.2) implicating the accused in the alleged crime.
7. In view of the above evidence of the victim, the testimony of the complainant and other witnesses becomes redundant. However, P.W.I, who is the father of the victim and complainant of this case, feigned his ignorance about the alleged incident by stating that he does not remember the exact occurrence. According to him, he has stated that the accused used to visit his house as per his convenience to clear the doubts of the victim, who was reading in Class-XII in K.V. No.1, Bhubaneswar. Although P.W.1 has deposed that on the date of occurrence, between 3.00 PM & 4.00 PM, he heard the loud weeping of the victim, yet he is silent about the reason of such weeping. P.W.I has proved the FIR as Ext. I and his signature thereon vide Ext. 1/1, but he does not know the contents of the FIR. Thus, the recitals made in the FIR have not been proved by P.W.1. Prosecution declared P.W.I hostile and confronted him with his earlier statement made before the police relating to the alleged incident, which was outrightly denied by him, except stating about seizure of some articles from him. In his cross-examination by defence, P.W. I has admitted that the behavior of the accused is decent and gentle and he never levied any charge for such clearance of doubts of the students. He further admitted that on the date of occurrence, hearing the cry of the victim, he and his wife became emotional for which there was a talk of war between themselves. According to P.W.1, the victim never made any Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 18 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 allegation against the accused about his indecent behavior, if any, to have been displayed to her. Moreso, in his cross-examination by defence, P.W.I stated that now he has no grievance against the accused.
8. In view of such evidence of the victim (P.W.2) and the complainant (P.W.I), extensive analysis of the testimony of P.W.3 & P.W.4 would be nothing but a futile exercise, Be that as it may, both P.W.3 & P.W.4 have stated that they do not remember anything about the occurrence. Although both of them were declared hostile by the prosecution, nothing substantial is brought out from their evidence so as to warrant the complicity of the accused in the alleged offences. In her cross-examination by defence, P.W.3 has deposed that the accused was looking after the victim and giving affection to her like his daughter and she has no grievance against him. Similarly, P.W.4 has stated in his cross-examination by defence that the victim had never made any allegation against the accused about his indecent conduct or behavior to have been shown to her.
11.Viewing in totality and taking into account the testimony of the prosecution witness, as narrated hereinabove, no criminality is found either in the evidence of the victim or in the evidence of her parents and brother. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be fraught with great amount of risk to mount accusation on the accused. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home any of the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
12.In the result, therefore, the accused is held not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 354/354-A/354- D of the IPC and under Section 8/12 of the POSCO Act and he is acquitted there from in terms of Section 235 (1) of the Cr.P.C."
7. However, the applicant was communicated with an order dated 28.06.2021 passed by the Commissioner, KVS(HQ) (Respondent No.2) the Disciplinary Authority. The operative part of the above said order is quoted below:- Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 19 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 " I am also satisfied that the following preconditions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its judgements dated 2.5.2003 in SLP(C ) No.9808/2002 filed by the Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Ors. Vs. Babban Prasad Yadav are duly fulfilled:-
i) Holding of summary inquiry.
ii) A finding in such summary inquiry that
the charged employee was guilty of
moral turpitude.
iii) Satisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of such summary inquiry that the Charged Officer was prima facie guilty.
iv) Satisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority that it was not expedient to hold an inquiry on account of serious embarrassment to be caused to the student or guardian or such other practical difficulties.
v) The recording of the reasons in writing in support of the aforesaid.
Now, therefore, the undersigned, being the Competent Authority, in exercise of powers conferred under Article 81(B) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas, hereby terminates the services of Shri B.K. Das, PGT (Chemistry), KV No.2 Bhubaneswar with immediate effect. He will be paid the pay and allowances as admissible under the rules in lieu of the notice period.
Shri B.K. Das may, if he feels so, may prefer an appeal against this order before the Hon'ble Vice Chairman, KVS, being the competent Appellate Authority, within 45 days of the receipt of this order in terms of Article 81( C) of the Education Code for KVS."
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 20 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 Being aggrieved with the above order of the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant submitted appeal dated 02.08.2021 to the Appellate Authority with request for quashing of the order dated 28.06.2021 passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
8. It is stated by the applicant that while the appeal was pending, the judgment in the criminal case was passed on 30.09.2021. Therefore, he filed a representation to the Appellate Authority, bringing his notice the order passed in the criminal case instituted against him. The Appellate Authority, passed the order dated 27.07.2022 (A/14) upholding the views of the Disciplinary Authority in a cryptic and arbitrary manner without taking into consideration of the facts its entirety and the order in criminal case.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that this Bench while deciding his O.A. No.137/2017 on 06.02.2019 categorically observed that if the employee found not guilty in the Criminal Proceedings, his honour may be vindicated. In the present case, the applicant is found not guilty in the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 21 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 Criminal Proceeding. The Departmental Proceeding was not conducted as per the procedure provided under the Education Code. Therefore, considering the case of the applicant from any angle, the orders dated 28.06.2021 (A/11) and dated 27.04.2022(A/14) are neither sustainable in the eyes of law nor maintainable and therefore, being nonest are liable to be quashed. It is stated that since the applicant has in the meantime, has reached the age of superannuation, he is also entitled to the retiral benefits as is admissible to a person who has attained the age of superannuation while continuing in service.
10. The respondents have filed their counter contesting the case of the applicant by stating that the applicant while working as PGT(Chem) at KV No.2 (2nd shift), Bhubaneswar during the year 2015-16, came into physical contact with a girl student at the time of imparting tuition at her residence, touched her different private parts and immorally misbehaved her. In the above backdrop, an FIR was lodged by the parents of the girl student on 14.01.2016 which was registered as Kharvelanagar PS Case No.24/2016 Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 22 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 and resultantly, the Police arrested him and later on, he was sent to the judicial custody. He was placed under deemed suspension with effect from 14.01.2016 and subsequently, on being released on bail, the order of suspension was revoked and he was posted to K.V. Srikakulam.
11. It is stated by the respondents that Article-80 of the Education Code for KVs provides for extension of the application of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and these rules are applicable to KVS "mutatis mutandis", and to safeguard the interest of the female students and protect them from teachers who involve in demonstrating immoral sexual behaviour, special provision under Article-81(B) has been framed with the approval of Board of Governors. The extract of the said Article-81(B) is reproduced for reference of this Tribunal as under :-
"ARTICLE-81(B) OF THE EDUCATION CODE:- 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 Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 23 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 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 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 TALK practicable to hold such enquiry and he shall keep the Chairman of the Sangathan informed of the circumstances leading to such termination of services."
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its Judgment dated 16.08.2010 In SLP No.4627/2008 filed by Commissioner, KVS-vrs-Ratin Pal and vide its Judgment dated 24.07.2017 In SLP(C) No. 16882/2017 filed by Ananta Charan Das-vrs-KVS & Ors, and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide Its Judgment dated 04.02.2014 in W.P(C)No.510/2014 & C.M.No.1024/2014 filed by Yogendra Nath -vrs- KVS & Ors, the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand vide its Judgment dated 01.12.2008 in W.P(C) No. 221/2007 Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 24 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 filed by KVS & Ors-vrs- State of Jharkhand & Ors and the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay vide its Judgment dated 07.06.2016 in W.P (C)No.2625/2014 filed by Gokul Rajaramji Ingle -vrs- KVS & Ors have also upheld the punishment order passed by the Commissioner, KVS in exercise of the power conferred upon him under Article-81(B) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas.
13. It is contended by the respondents that the Assistant Commissioner, KVS, RO, BBSR & Convener, Summary Inquiry Committee completed their inquiry and submitted its report to the Deputy Commissioner, KVS, RO, BBSR vide letter dtd.25.03.2019 with the finding that" the Video Clip of the CD clearly reveals that Sh.B.K.Das was touching the upper portion of her left arm, pressing her left arm with his right hand, touching her fingers on the notebook kept her lap, touching her cheek/neck, touching her back portion, more than once. At this time, Km. Anchal called her mother as "BOU", "BOU" (Mother! Mother) and two three persons came to the room and camera recording was disconnected immediately. The above Video Clips proves the immoral behaviour of Sh.B.K.Das, PGT(Chem.) Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 25 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 exhibited towards Km. Anchal Dash, daughter of Sh. Umesh Prasad Dash on 14/01/2016 which is unbecoming on the part of the teacher."
14. It is stated by the respondents that the Review Application No.6/2019 and M.A. No.146/2019 (Arising out of O.A. No.137/2017) were filed by the applicant before this Tribunal which was also disposed of on 28.03.2019 in favour of KVS. As per guidelines/ preconditions fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments passed in Avinash Nagra vrs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Ors and Director. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Ors vrs Shri Baban Prasad Yadav (supra) the Commissioner, KVS being the Competent Authority after going through the enquiry report along with information/documents, complaint dtd.14.01.2016 of Shri Umesh Prasad Dash F/o. Kum. Anchal Dash, statements of the accused teacher, students, staff members, victim girl, her father and after viewing the Video Clip, issued Memorandum of Show Cause Notice dtd.22.10.2019.
15. It is stated by the respondents that the applicant gave a representation dtd.11.11.2019 against Memorandum of Show Cause Notice dtd.22.10.2019, for allowing one Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 26 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 month time to him to submit his reply and requested for personal hearing on 10.01.2020 at KVS (HQ). At the same time applicant filed O.A.No.731/2019 before this Bench challenging the Memorandum dtd.22.10.2019. This Bench disposed of the O.A.No. 731/2019 on 03.01.2020 with the direction that "the applicant make a reply to the Memorandum dtd.22.10.2019 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the order, the latter shall consider and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the extant rules and instructions on the subject, within a reasonable time frame." In response to the above order dtd.03.01.2020 applicant submitted his representation dtd. 13.01.2020 and assured to submit his reply within stipulated period. Thereafter he filed Reply to Show Cause on 27.01.2020. The Commissioner, KVS has also given "Personal Hearing" to him on 05.02.2020. Thus, the applicant got ample opportunities to put forth his grievances/contentions before the Competent Authority. At the same time W.P(C) No.4226/2020 was filed by him challenging the order dtd.03.01.2020 passed in Ο.Α.Νο.731/2019. The Hon'ble Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 27 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 High Court of Orissa vide its order dtd.11.02.2020 granted interim order, that the "Disciplinary Enquiry pursuant to the order of the Tribunal shall continue, but no final order shall be passed without leave of this Court." The Writ Petition has Dismissed on 11.02.2020. The Commissioner, KVS after being convinced with the findings of the Summary Inquiry Committee and also satisfied with the need to dispense with the detailed inquiry under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 in exercise of powers conferred upon Article-81(B) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas, terminated the services of the applicant, vide order dtd. 28.06.2021 (A/11) which was upheld in appeal by the Vice Chairperson, KVS vide order dtd.27.04.2022 (A/14 in a speaking & reasoned order.
16. It is contended by the respondents that the departmental proceedings and the criminal prosecution, though may be based on the same incident of facts, are in fact, two separate proceedings and, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held (1) "taking recourse to both does not amount to double jeopardy" (S.A.Venkataraman v Union of India, AIR1954 SC 375) (ii "both the proceedings can be held Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 28 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 simultaneously" (Capt. M. Paul Anthony v Bharat Gold Mines. (1999) 3 SCC 679). Therefore, this Tribunal vide its order dtd.06.02.2019 passed in O.A.No.137/2017(A/8 after giving reference of the above cited judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and DOP&T Office Memorandum No.11012/06/2007-Estt.A dated. 01.08.2007 categorically held that "the purpose is that if the employee is found not guilty, his honour may be vindicate and in case he is found guilty administration may get rid of him at the earliest." Further in (2019 (1) OLR (SC) 866, the Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust & Another V. Kailash Ramesh Tandel & Ors). "Standard of proof & approach are different from criminal prosecution. Allegations are of such level & dimension that immediate action on the departmental front was required to undertaken. Pendency of criminal trial has no bearing with issue before the inquiry committee." In (1996) 6 SCC 417, State of Rajasthan v B. K. Meena & Ors "The interest of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceeding are meant not really to punish the guilt but to keep the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 29 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be and should not be, a matter of course." In (1997) 2 SCC 699, Depot. Manager, A. P. State Road Transport Corporation v Mohd. Yusuf Miya & Ors "The inquiry in a departmental proceeding conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules & laws. The strict standard of proof or applicability of the evidence act stands excluded is a settled legal position." In Civil Appeal No. 7130/2009- Shashi Bhusan Prasad v Inspector General. CISF & Ors, decided on 01.08.2019, " The two proceedings criminal & departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields & have different objective whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on an offender. The purpose of inquiry proceeding is to deal with the delinquent departmental & to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules." In AIR 2004 SC 4172. KVS & Ors v T. Srinivas," Departmental inquiry need not be stayed in every case where a criminal trial in regard to the same misconduct is pending. The Court should take into Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 30 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 consideration the seriousness of the charge & the desirability of continuing the person concerned in service in spite of serious charges labeled against him." In 2020 (1) OLR (SC) 246, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Krishna Kumar Pandev. "The Hon'ble High Court in a revision arising out of conviction could not have shield the right of the employer to take action on the basis of conduct which led to the conviction of an employee within the parameters of the Service Rules." Therefore, it is submitted that the approach, the objective in the criminal proceeding against applicant and the Disciplinary proceeding under Article- 81(B) is altogether distinct & different. In the disciplinary proceeding under Article-81(B) the question is whether the applicant is guilty of immoral behavior towards students or not. In criminal proceeding whether the offenses registered against the applicant under Section 354/354(A)/354(D) of IPC along with section 8 of POSCO Act of 2012 ((the protection of children from sexual offenses act) i.e.. assault or use of criminal force to a woman in an intent to outrage her modesty are established with POSCO Act, 2012 or not. The Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments as discussed Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 31 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 in the supra paragraphs have observed that the standard of proof, the mode of inquiry and rules governing the inquiry & trial in both the proceedings are distinct and different.
17. It is further stated by the respondents that the allegation of prosecution in the criminal case is that the applicant was imparting tution to the victim girl where he sexually harassed and therefore, the private tution is the basis where the criminal case emanates. It is the prosecution which has to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the applicant was going for private tution falling which as a corollary, the other charges will stand nullified by the consequence. This being the position, the applicant has emphasized that the private tution which is said to be violative of Clause-19 of Article-59 of Education Code cannot be independently enquired into by the Respondents. In other words, it has been submitted that if at all Imparting private tuition is a misconduct under Clause-19 of Article-59 of the Code, the respondents are at liberty to proceed against the applicant under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 & not certainly under Article-NET 81(B) of KVS which prescribes that Summary Inquiry can be done where the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 32 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 allegation of sexual harassment is brought against the teacher and in that event the regular inquiry under CCS(CCA) Rules can be dispensed with. Therefore, the allegations of private tuition cannot form the subject matter of summary Inquiry either Independently or jointly on the allegation of sexual harassment by the Respondents.
18. It is the contention of the respondents that as per both the Preliminary as well as Summary Inquiry Report, the girl student has deposed against Sh.B.K.Das, Ex- PGT(Chem.) about his immoral behaviour towards her including Video Clips proved every thing. As per the provisions under Article-81(B) of the Education Code for KVS, the cross examination of girl students is not permitted as holding of a regular inquiry in accordance with CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 has been dispensed with for it is not expedient to hold a regular Inquiry on account of embarrassment to students or their guardians. The allegations raised by the girl student against Sh.B.K.Das, Ex-PGT(Chem.) are fully proved during both the Preliminary as well as Summary Inquiry. Therefore, entire action of the Competent Authorities are legal & valid & sustainable in the eye of law. Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 33 O.A.260/00356 of 2022
19. It is stated by the respondents that, the victim girl and the applicant both belongs to the same educational Institution and the applicant cannot be left scot free from the proceeding under Article-81(B) on the ground that the incident happened outside the school premises because to safeguard the interest of girl students and to protect from teachers involved in demonstrating immoral sexual behaviour, special provision under Article-81(B) has been framed which is confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments. In the case of Avinash Nagra v Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Ors in (1997) 2 SCC 534 at Para-12, "the accused teacher made sexual advance towards girl student at "GIRLS HOSTEL" but not at school & the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the order of punishment under Article-81(B) with the findings that the conduct of the applicant is unbecoming of a teacher much less a Loco parents. Further in the case of Prof. Shashikant B. Kulkarni v The Principal, BPes College, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has confirmed the order of the removal wherein the accused teacher was molested the girl student at "HOTEL ROOM". And another incident took place during the hike of Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 34 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 the students at "KANHERI CAVES" (Splashing Water on the Chest of a Girl Student by the Accused Teacher). Both the incident were happened outside the school premises and the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay have also been confirmed the order of punishment passed by the Competent Authorities. Therefore, the present applicant has kept him out of the ambit of definition of Guru and he has misused the position as a teacher and exceeded his jurisdiction by his depraved mind and molested the girl student of Class-XII (Video Clip available & at the time of incident she was 17 years old grown up girl) to arrive at a sadistic sexual pleasure and to save the image of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan as well as to save the girl students from sexual harassment and immoral sexual behaviour by her own teacher, the entire action of the Competent Authorities are completely legal & valid and sustainable in the eye of law. In an identical matter under Article-81(B) case, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in W.P(C) No.2625/2014 filed by Gokul Rajaramil Ingle v KVS vide its order dtd.07.06.2016 held that "The petitioner made one after another representation which is totally Irrelevant and Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 35 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 uncalled for and was made only with a motive to avoid action under Article-81(B) of KVS Code." Therefore, all the stapes under Article-81(B) has been taken at "VIDYALAYA LEVEL" by the Preliminary Inquiry Committee and "REGIONAL LEVEL" by the Summary Inquiry Committee with letter and spirit. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments categorically held that "Acquittal from Criminal Case does not ipso facto absolve Delinquent from Disciplinary Action." It was a serious case of allegations levelled by a girl student against a teacher for exhibiting immoral behaviour. And allegations levelled by a grown-up girl student of Class-XII against Sh.B.K.Das have been fully established during both the Preliminary as well as Summary Inquiry and the Video Clip also proves the Immoral behaviour of Sh.B.K.Das towards victim girl on 14.01.2016 which is unbecoming on the part of the teacher. And as per DOPT Office Memorandum No.11012/6/2007- Estt.A dated 01.08.2007, Point No.3 clearly shows that "If the charge in the criminal case is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and facts, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 36 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 conclusion of the criminal case. This will depend upon the nature of offense and the evidence and material collected against the government servant during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. If the criminal case does not proceed or it's disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were kept pending on account of the pendency of the criminal case can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty, his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest, if the case do warrants."
Therefore, in Civil Appeal No. 7130/2009-Shashi Bhusan Prasad v Inspector General CISF & Ors, decided on 01.08.2019, the Apex Court held that "The two proceedings criminal & departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objective. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on an offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. The degree of proof Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 37 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof of necessary to record the commission of delinquency. Even the rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution is also to proof the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he can not be convicted by Court of law whereas in the departmental inquiry, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability. Acquittal by the court of competent jurisdiction in a judicial proceeding does not ipso facto absolve the delinquent from the liability under the Disciplinary jurisdiction of the authority." In (2005) 7 SCC 764 - Ajit Kumar Nag v General Manager (PJ) IOCL, Haldia, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that As far as acquittal of the applicant by criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the corporation from taking an action, if it is otherwise permissible." In the 2020 (1) OLR (SC) 246-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V Krishna Kumar Pandey. "the Hon'ble High Court in a revision out of conviction could not have shield the right of Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 38 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 the employer to take action on the basis of conduct which led to the conviction of an employee within the parameters of the Service Rules. The Appeal is allowed & the impugned order of Hon'ble High Court is set aside. In Sima Sarkar v Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Orsin C.A. No. 381 of 2016 in W.P. (C) T. No.7 of 2010, decided on 29.04.2019, by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court & held at Para 53, " is it the law of the country that an order of acquittal recorded by a criminal court would banned the employer thereby disabling it to take disciplinary action against an employee, who is prima facie negligent in discharging official duty & gains whom there is evidence to proceed thereof. There is a line of cases which laid down the law that a decision of a criminal court is not binding on a civil court. In a civil action between different parties the finding of a criminal court certainly can not be treated as binding. If any authority is required, one may refer to the decisions in Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v State (Delhi Administration) reported in (2009) 5 SCC 528,"
20. It is stated by the respondents that the applicant in his show cause reply dated 27.01.2020, himself admitted Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30'
39 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 that "Whatever visual is available in the video clip can be possible by dotted manner and interpreted in two different ways. One of which is parental behaviour and "Another one is Sexual Advancement." However, there is nothing in the video clip showing touching any sensitive private parts of the girl. By this statement of the accused teacher (present applicant) clearly established that he himself admitting that his behaviour towards victim girl was sexual advancement & he touched different parts of her body i.e., a grown-up girl student of Class-XII (age 17 years at the time of incident). Therefore, in an identical matter in W.P(C) No. 20352/2016, filed by KVS & Ors v Ananta Charan Das, the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa vide its Judgment dated 17.02.2017 which was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that "The occurrence might have committed by him once or twice but the explanation given to that effect that it is by chance but not intentional but according to us even if it is not intentional the question is why a teacher will commit such type of behaviour with the girl student studying in class-VIII and further more whether it was intentional or non-intentional, it cannot be assessed by going through the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 40 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 mind of the teacher and further "It is expected from everyone that they must remain under their parameter & behave rationally & with moral." In (1997) 2 SCC 534- Avinash Nagra v NVS & Ors, the Apex Court held that "Inquiry is not a panacea but a nail in the coffin and one dirty fish pollutes entire pond and has to be fished out." In AIR 2013 SC 2408-Mohanlal & Ors v State of Punjab, the Apex Court held that "It became a case where fench itself eats the crop." Further in (1999) 1 SCC 759-Apparel Export Promotion Council v A.K. Chopra. the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "In a case involving charge of sexual harassment or attempt to sexually molest, the courts are required to examine the broader probabilities of a case and not yet swayed by insignificant discrepancies or narrow technicalities or the dictionary meaning of the expression molestation". They must examined the entire material to determine the genuineness of the complaint." In JT 1997 (7) SC 284-Vishakha & Ors v State of Rajasthan, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "Under the protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 a sexual harassment & behaviour has been defined to the either physical contact & advances & also Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 41 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 sexually coloured remarks. Within this definition any unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal contact of sexual nature, which caused annoyance to a woman, would also come within the ambit of "Immoral sexual behaviour." In (1998) 8 SCC 635-Ranjit Hazarika v State of Assam, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that." Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who explains of sexual molestation be viewed with doubt, disbelief, or suspicion ? The evidence of a sexual offense is entitled to great weight." Therefore, the applicant has kept him out of ambit of definition of Guru and he has misused the position as a teacher and exceeded his jurisdiction by his deprived mind and molested a grown- up girl of Class-XII (her age was 17 years) (he himself admitted in his Show Cause Reply that his behaviour towards victim girl was sexual advancement) to arrive at a sadistic sexual pleasure. Hence, to save the image of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan as well as to save the girl students from sexual harassment and immoral sexual behaviour, the entire action of the Competent Authorities are legal and valid and sustainable in the eye of law. Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 42 O.A.260/00356 of 2022
21. It is stated by the respondents that the outcome of the Criminal Case has no bearing upon the finding of departmental Inquiry conducted by KVS authorities against the applicant under the provision of Article 81(B) of Education Code. Acquittal from criminal case does not ipso facto absolve delinquent from disciplinary action. Therefore, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Sima Sarkar v Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors (supra) categorically held that" is it the law of the country that an order of acquittal recorded by the criminal court would bind the employer, thereby disabling it to take disciplinary action against an employee, who is prima facie negligent in discharging official duty and against whom there is evidence to proceed thereof ? There is a line of cases which lay down the law that a decision of a Criminal Court is not binding on a Civil Court. In a Civil action between different parties the finding of a Criminal Court certainly can not be treated as binding. "In the instance case inquiries were conducted against the applicant for his immoral behaviour against the victim girl student and he himself in his Show Cause Reply admitted that whatever visual is available in the Video clip can be possible Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 43 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 by dotted manner and interpreted in two different ways. One of which is parental behaviour and "another one is Sexual Advancement". However, there is nothing in the Video Clip showing touching any sensitive private parts of the girl." Through this statements the applicant himself admitting that he has seen the video Clip at the time of inquiry and his behaviour was also sexual advancement but he has not touched any sensitive part of victim girl but touched. At the time of incident the victim girl was reading in Class-XII and her age was 17. She was a grown up girl and student of the accused teacher. The act of the applicant was unbecoming of good conduct and behaviour expected from a teacher as Guru. Hence, in Vishakha (supra) case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "within the definition any unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal contact of sexual nature, which causes annoyance to a woman or girl, would also come within the ambit of "Imoral Sexual Behaviour", The applicant was also appeared in person before the Authority and given adequate opportunity to defend himself, both Preliminary as well as Summary inquiry were conducted by the duly constituted Committee, Show Cause Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 44 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 Notice with all the documents supplied to him as per guidelines fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, his reply was taken in to consideration and thereafter his service were terminated under Article 81(B) of Education Code for KVs. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2011) 10 SCC 249- State Bank of India vs Ram Lal Bhaskar & Anr held that "the Hon'ble Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority over the Disciplinary Authority and so long as the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are supported by some evidence the Hon'ble Court does not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on the evidence" Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1963 SC 1723-State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors v Sree Rama Rao held that "Where there is some evidence, which the Authority entrusted with the duty to held the inquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support, the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charges, it is not the function of the Court or Tribunal in a petition to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence." Therefore, the action of the Competent Authorities are legal and valid and Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 45 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 sustainable in the eye of law. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the O.A. is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
22. Applicant has filed a rejoinder to the counter in which it has been submitted that the authorities can resort to the procedure of summary enquiry under Article 81 (B) of Education code on the allegation of sexual abuse on a girl student by her teacher even if that has happened outside the school premises. At the same time, the applicant made it conspicuous that even conceding for a moment but not accepting the applicant was holding private tuition in violation of Clause-19 of Article 59 of KVS Education Code, the same cannot be amenable to the provisions of Article- 81(B) of Education Code necessitating the respondents for conducting a summary inquiry. It has been submitted that the allegation of prosecution in the criminal case is that the applicant was imparting tuition to the victim girl where he sexually harassed and therefore, the private tuition is the basis where the criminal case emanates. It is the prosecution which has to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the applicant was going for private tuition failing Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 46 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 which, as a corollary, the other charges will stand nullified by consequence. This being the position, the applicant has emphasized that the private tuition which is said to be violative of Clause- 19 of Article 59 of Education Code cannot be independently enquired into by the respondents. In other words, it has been submitted that if at all imparting private tuition is a misconduct under Clause19 of Article-59 of the Code, the respondents are at liberty to proceed against the applicant under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and not certainly under Article81(B) of KVS which prescribes that summary inquiry can be done where the allegation of sexual harassment is brought against the teacher and in that event the regular inquiry under CCS(CCA) Rules can be dispensed with. Therefore, the allegation of private tuition cannot form the subject matter of summary inquiry either independently or jointly on the allegation of sexual harassment by the Respondents.
23. It is stated by the applicant that the respondents have referred the following Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court said to have decided in the case of (i) Civil Appeal No.14525/1996 filed by Avinash Nagra -vrs- Navodaya Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 47 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 Vidyalaya Samiti & Ors, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 534, (ii) in SLP(C) No.9808/2002 filed by the Director. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Ors -vrs- Shri Babban Prasad Yadav, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 568 it is stated by the applicant that the ratio of the above cases have no application to the case of the applicant. It is stated by the applicant that the PS case No.24 of 2016 was taken for trial before the competent Criminal Court of Law and the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Special Court, Bhubaneswar found the allegations are to be false, incorrect and therefore, declared the applicant as not guilty and acquitted him from the above charges vide its judgment dated 30.09.2021. As no appeal was preferred against the said order, the order is final and binding. In view of this, the allegations made in this O.A. is false, baseless, incorrect and therefore, denied by the applicant. It is further stated by the applicant that without causing enquiry in any manner by affording opportunity to the applicant, the authority could not have come to a conclusion to adhere the provisions of Article-81(B) of the Education Code of KVS. Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 48 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 This is violative of principle of natural justice and misuse of the provisions contemplated under the Code of KVS.
24. It is further stated by the applicant that the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Bhubaneswar (TR No.5 of 2016 arising out of Kharabelanagar P.S. Case No.24 dated 14.01.2016 ) vide judgment dated 30.09.2021 is quoted as hereunder:-
"11. Viewing in totality and taking into account the testimony of the prosecution witness, as narrated hereinabove, no criminality is found either in the evidence of the victim or in the evidence of her parents and brother. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be fraught with great amount of risk to mount accusation on the accused. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home any of the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
12. In the result, therefore, the accused is held not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 354/354-A/354-D of the IPC and under Section 8/12 of the POSCO Act and he is acquitted there from in terms of Section 235 (1) of the Cr.P.C. The accused is directed to be discharged from the bail-bond(s) furnished by him.
13. The Zimanama in respect of the articles seized under Exts.2 & 4 be cancelled four months after expiry of the appeal period, if no appeal is preferred; in the event of appeal, the same be dealt Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 49 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 with as per the orders of the Hon'ble Appellate Court. "
25. Learned counsel for the applicant to support his case heavily placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following cases:
(1) Baradakanta Mishra vs The Registrar Of Orissa High Court & Anr (1974) AIR 710.
26. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed the Judgements related to Article-81 (B) of KVS Code i.e... Termination of Services of an Employee found guilty of Immoral Behavior towards Students and dispensing with regular enquiry under the rules and denial of cross- examination to the girl students are legal and not visited by violation of the principles of natural justice. And other Judgements related to Sexual Harassment out side the Educational Institutions and Acquittal from Criminal Cases which are as follows:-
(1) Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Ors(1997) 2 SCC 534. Hon'ble Apex Court. (2) Director, NVS & Ors vrs Babban Prasad Yadav & Anr, (2004) 13 SCC 568. Hon'ble Apex Court. (3) Commissioner, KVS & Ors vrs. Rathin Pal, SLP(C) No.4637/2008, dt. 16.08.2010. Hon'ble Apex Court.Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 50 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 (4) MD. Iqubal vrs Commissioner, KVS & Ors., W.P.(C), No.5842/2009, dt. 03.05.2024. High Court of Orissa.
(5) Assistant Commissioner (OFTG), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Bhubaneswar & Anr vrs Padmalochan Mohanty & Ors, W.P.(C).
No.8080/2009, dt. 11.03.2022. Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.
(6) Ananta Chandra Das vrs KVS & Ors SLP(C) No.16882/2017. Hon'ble Apex Court, (7) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vrs Ananta Chandra Das. W.P.(C).No.20352/2016, Hon'ble High Court of Orissa.
(8) KVS vrs State of Jharkhand & Anr.
W.P.(C).No.221/2007. dt.01.12.2008, Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand.
(9) Yogendra Nath vrs Commissioner, KVS W.P.(C).No. 1024/2014, dt.04.12.2014. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
(10) Gokul S/o Rajaramji Ingle vrs KVS W.P.(C).No.2625 /2014, d.07.06.2016, Hon'ble High Court of Bombay.
(11) Prof.Shashikant B. Kulkarni vrs. The Principal, Bpes College, W.P.(C). No. 2011/2006, dt.05.05.2008, Hon'ble High Court of Bombay.
(12) Vishakha & Ors, v. State of Rajasthan, JT 1997 (7) SC 284, (13) Ranjit Hazarika vrs State of Assam, (1998) 8 SCC 635.
(14) The Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and Anr vrs Kailash Ranesh Tandel & Ors, 2019 (1) OLR SC 866.
(15) Shashi Bhusan Prasad vrs Inspector General CISF & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 7130/2009, Judgement dt.01.08.2019.
(16) Ajit Kumar Nag vrs General Manager (PJ) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia.
(17) New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vrs Krishna Kumar Pandev. 2020 (1) OLR (SC) 246.
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar BeheraKalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 51 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 (18) Sima Sarkar vrs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
& Ors in C.A.No.381/2016 in W.P.(C).No.T. No.7/2010, High Court of Calcutta, Judgement dt. 29.04.2019.
(19) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors vrs T.Srinivas. 2004 SC 4127.
(20) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors vrs Sarvesh Berry, (2005) 10 SCC 471.
(21) State of Karnataka & Ors vrs T.Venkataramanappa, (1996) 6. SCC 455. (22) UOI & Ors vrs Bihar Lal Sindhana, (1997) 4 SCC 385.
(23) Capt.M.Paul Antony v. Bharat G. Mines, (1999) 3 SCC 679, (24) State of Rajasthan vrs B.K.Meena & Ors, (1996)6SCC 417, (25) Ram Gopal Kumawat vrs United Commercial Bank & Anг, Judgement dt. 26.10.2015. High Court of Rajasthan, (26) Depot.Manager. A.P.State Road Transport Corporation vrs Mohd. Yusuf Miya & Ors, (1997) 2 SCC 699.
(27) Mangt. Bharat Heavy Ele Ltd. v. M.Mani, AIR 2018 SC 384.
27. We have heard the learned counsels for both the sides and perused the records. We have also gone through the written notes of submissions and various decisions filed by the respective parties.
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar BeheraKalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 52 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 28 We have examined the matter in great detail. We find that the allegation against the applicant in the criminal case for which he has been terminated is as under :
"Whereas Mr. B.K. Das while in working as PGT (Chem.) in KV No.1 (2 shift), Bhubaneswar engaged himself imparting private tuition to the victim girl student of KV No.1 (2 shift), Bhubaneswar, Class XII (2015-16) at her residence in Bhubaneswar in violation of Para 19 of Article 59 of Education Code. He had been abusing sexually the said girl student since long. The girl student narrated the fact to her mother and the parent decided to stop the tuition by the said teacher Mr. B.K. Das, PGT (Chem). When the parent stopped the tuition, the said Mr. B.K. Das, PGT (Chem) threatened the girl student over phone to reduce the marks in practical of Chemistry subject.
2. Whereas Mr. B.K. Das, PGT (Chem) suddenly reached the residence of victim girl at 03.40 PM on 14.01.2016 in Bhubaneswar, entered inside the room and started teaching the subject concerned. He exhibited sexual behaviour and touched the private part of the victim girl. He was touching the private part of the said victim girl since long as recorded by the father of the said victim girl in the complaint dt. 14.01.2016 addressed to the IIC, Kharavelnagar Police Station, Commissionerate of Police, Bhubaneswar. This matter was also published in local Odiya Language newspaper "Pragatibadi dated 15.01.2016. Mr. B.K. Das, PGT (Chem) was arrested and was sent to the Judicial Custody vide Order dated 22.01.2016, he was placed under Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 53 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 deemed suspension with effect from 14.01.2016 i.e. from the date of detention. After revocation of suspension Sh. B.K. Das was posted at KV, Srikalulam where he joined on 14.03.2016."
29. It is apt to state that the effect of acquittal in the criminal case instituted on self same allegation on the decision of the disciplinary proceeding came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal -Vs- State of Rajasthan & Others (2024) 1 SCC 175 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court based on the acquittal in the Criminal Case, quashed the order of punishment imposed on the said Appellant in the Disciplinary Proceedings by observing as under:
"26. We are satisfied that the findings of the appellate judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not just, "not proved" - in fact the charge even stood "disproved" by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be "disproved" when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be "not proved" when it is neither "proved" nor "disproved" [See Vijayee Singh and Others v. State of U.P. (1990) 3 SCC 190].Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 54 O.A.260/00356 of 2022
27. We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of the finding of the appellate Judge, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed thereon cannot be allowed to stand. The charges were not just similar but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same. This is a case where in exercise of our discretion, we quash the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as allowing them to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. This case is very similar to the situation that arose in G.M. Tank (supra)."
30. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision dated April 23, 2025, in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh
-Vs- State of Bihar & Others, in Civil Appeal No.5497 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9818 of 2017) dated December 23.04. 2025 by placing reliance on the earlier decision in the case of Ram Lal (supra), following the acquittal in the Criminal Case, quashed the order of punishment imposed in disciplinary proceedings and directed grant of all benefits, however, confining the salary arrears to certain extent by observing as under:
"(iii)Dismissal from service-Acquittal in criminal case-While an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle accused to have order of setting aside of his dismissal from public service following disciplinary proceedings, it is well established that when charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both departmental inquiry Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 55 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 and criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, situation assumes a different context-In such cases, upholding findings in disciplinary proceedings would be unjust, unfair, and oppressive-To assess degree of similarity between charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in disciplinary and criminal proceedings, it is indeed crucial to review materials placed before Court where such an issue arises-
Absence of departmental file has disabled us from looking into same-Plain reading of materials available on record only reveals that Charge No. 1 in disciplinary closely resembled allegations in criminal proceedings-Disciplinary proceedings were initiated based on written complaint of informant- Appellant's acquittal was based not on mere technicalities-In course of inquiry PW-2 had also declined to identify appellant during cross- examination, and informant was not called as witness in disciplinary proceedings This sort of creates a parallel between circumstances in both the criminal and disciplinary proceedings-Finding of appellant being guilty of Charge No. 1 cannot be sustained following his acquittal in criminal proceedings, which seem to have involved substantially similar or identical charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances.
(Paras 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 43, 44, 45)
(iv)Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 226, 227-Dismissal from service-Compensation-Judicial review-Power of High Court-Misconduct While exercising its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, High Court does not exercise powers that are available to Appellate Court-It is decision- making process that falls for scrutiny-High Courts can rectify errors of law or procedural irregularities, if any, that lead to a manifest miscarriage of justice or breach of principles of natural justice- Disciplinary proceedings had not been conducted against the appellant in tune with principles of Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 56 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 fairness as well as natural justice which severely prejudiced his defence-Impugned order, is unsustainable-Appellant would be approximately 74 years old and around 45 years old in 1996, evincing that he had nearly 14/15 (fourteen/fifteen) years of service remaining at time of his dismissal- Relief of reinstatement in service cannot be granted now-Ends of justice would be sufficiently served if payment of lumpsum compensation of Rs. 30 lakh to appellant inclusive of all service and retiral benefits by respondents directed to be paid."
(Paras 55, 56, 63, 65, 68)
31. It is not in dispute that the subject matter of the allegation, besides under scrutiny of the authorities concerned, as per provision under Article 81(B) of KV Code, was also the subject matter of judicial scrutiny in TR No. 5 of 2016 arising out of Kharabelanagar PS Case No. 24 dated 14.01.2016 by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Bhubaneswar wherein for the failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the allegation, the applicant was exonerated from the charge vide order dated 30.09.2021 and it is not in dispute that the said order was not challenged by the prosecution before any higher forum and, thus, the same was set at rest.
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 57 O.A.260/00356 of 2022
32. We find that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vishaka & Ors Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors, AIR 1997 SC 3011, in exercise of the power under Article 32 declared law under Article 141 of the of the Constitution of India mandating all employers or persons in charge of work place of the Government, Private or PSU to make effective enforcement of the basic human right of gender equality and guarantee against sexual harassment and abuse by constituting committee in the manner provided in the decision until a legislation is enacted for the purpose. In compliance of the aforesaid decision, the DoP&T issued exhaustive OM No. 11013/10/1997-Estt.A dated 13.02.1998 for strict adherence by the employer of different organization. The views expressed in the case of Vishaka & Ors(supra) have also been reiterated for compliance by every employer in the case of Medha Kiotwal Lele and other Vs UoI & Ors, (2013) 1 SCC 297. Thereafter, in 2013, the Legislation was enacted and brought into the force by the Government known as "Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 58 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 2013" mandating and enforcing every employer to follow the yardsticks as under:
"4. Constitution of Internal Complaints Committee.-- (1) Every employer of a workplace shall, by an order in writing, constitute a Committee to be known as the "Internal Complaints Committee":
Provided that where the offices or administrative units of the workplace are located at different places or divisional or sub-divisional level, the Internal Committee shall be constituted at all administrative units or offices.
(2) The Internal Committees shall consist of the following members to be nominated by the employer, namely: --
(a) a Presiding Officer who shall be a woman employed at a senior level at workplace from amongst the employees:
Provided that in case a senior level woman employee is not available, the Presiding Officer shall be nominated from other offices or administrative units of the workplace referred to in sub-section(1):
Provided further that in case the other offices or administrative units of the workplace do not have a senior level woman employee, the Presiding Officer shall be nominated from any other workplace of the same employer or other department or organisation;
(b) not less than two Members from amongst employees preferably committed to the cause of Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30'
59 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 women or who have had experience in social work or have legal knowledge;
(c) one member from amongst non-
governmental organizations or associations committed to the cause of women or a person familiar with the issues relating to sexual harassment:
Provided that at least one-half of the total Members so nominated shall be women.
(3) The Presiding Officer and every Member of the Internal Committee shall hold office for such period, not exceeding three years, from the date of their nomination as may be specified by the employer.
(4) The Member appointed from amongst the non-governmental organizations or associations shall be paid such fees or allowances for holding the proceedings of the Internal Committee, by the employer, as may be prescribed.
(5) Where the Presiding Officer or any Member of the Internal Committee, --
(a) contravenes the provisions of section 16; or
(b) has been convicted for an offence or an inquiry into an offence under any law for the time being in force is pending against him; or
(c) he has been found quilt in any disciplinary proceedings or a disciplinary proceeding is pending against him; or
(d) has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to the public interest, such Presiding Officer or Member, as the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30'
60 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 case may be, shall be removed from the Committee and the vacancy so created or any casual vacancy shall be filled by fresh nomination in accordance with the provisions of this section."
xxx xxx
9. Complaint of sexual harassment.-- (1) Any aggrieved woman may make, in writing, a complaint of sexual harassment at workplace to the Internal Committee if so constituted, or the Local Committee, in case it is not so constituted, within a period of three months from the date of incident and in case of a series of incidents, within a period of three months from the date of last incident:
Provided that where such complaint cannot be made in writing, the Presiding Officer or any Member of the Internal Committee or the Chairperson or any Member of the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the woman for making the complaint in writing:
Provided further that the Internal Committee or, as the case may be, the Local Committee may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the time limit not exceeding three months , if it is satisfied that the circumstances were such which prevented the woman from filing a complaint within the said period.
(2) Where the aggrieved woman is unable to make a complaint on account of her physical or mental incapacity or death or otherwise, her legal heir or such other person as may be prescribed may make a complaint under this section."Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 61 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 xxx xxx "11. Inquiry into complaint.-- (1) Subject to the provisions of section 10, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall, where the respondent is an employee, proceed to make inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent and where no such rules exist, in such manner as may be prescribed or in case of a domestic worker, the Local Committee shall, if prima facie case exist, forward the complaint to the police, within a period of seven days for registering the case under section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and any other relevant provisions of the said Code where applicable:
Provided that where the aggrieved woman informs the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, that any term or condition of the settlement arrived at under sub- section (2) of section 10 has not been complied with by the respondent, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee shall proceed to make an inquiry into the complaint or, as the case may be, forward the complaint to the police:
Provided further that where both the parties are employees, the parties shall, during the course of inquiry, be given an opportunity of being heard and a copy of the findings shall be made available to both the parties enabling them to make representation against the findings before the Committee.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the court may, when the respondent is convicted of the offence, order payment of such sums as it Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 62 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 may consider appropriate, to the aggrieved woman by the respondent, having regard to the provisions of section 15.
(3) For the purpose of making an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:--
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; and
(c) any other matter which may be prescribed. (4) The inquiry under sub-section (1) shall be completed within a period of ninety days."
xxx xxx "13. Inquiry report.--(1) On the completion of an inquiry under this Act, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall provide a report of its findings to the employer, or as the case may be, the District Officer within a period of ten days from the date of completion of the inquiry and such report be made available to the concerned parties.
(2) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has not been proved, it shall recommend to the employer and the District Officer that no action is required to be taken in the matter.
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 63 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 (3) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has been proved, it shall recommend to the employer or the District Officer, as the case may be--
(i) to take action for sexual harassment as a misconduct in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent or where no such service rules have been made, in such manner as may be prescribed;
(ii) to deduct, notwithstanding anything in the service rules applicable to the respondent, from the salary or wages of the respondent such sum as it may consider appropriate to be paid to the aggrieved woman or to her legal heirs, as it may determine, in accordance with the provisions of section 15:
Provide that in case the employer is unable to make such deduction from the salary of the respondent due to his being absent from duty or cessation of employment it may direct to the respondent to pay such sum to the aggrieved woman:
Provided further that in case the respondent fails to pay the sum referred to in clause (ii), the Internal Committee or as, the case may be, the Local Committee may forward the order for recovery of the sum as an arrear of land revenue to the concerned District Officer.
(4) The employer or the District Officer shall act upon the recommendation within sixty days of its receipt by him."Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 64 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 xxx xxx "18. Appeal.--(1) Any person aggrieved from the recommendations made under sub-section (2) of section 13 or under clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 13 or sub-section (1) or subsection (2) of section 14 or section 17 or non- implementation of such recommendations may prefer an appeal to the court or tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the said person or where no such service rules exist then, without prejudice to provisions contained in any other law for the time being in force, the person aggrieved may prefer an appeal in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) The appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred within a period of ninety days of the recommendations."
33. The aforesaid Act came into force on 09.12.2013 containing a mechanism to deal with the complaints of sexual harassment.
34. In order to implement Section 4 of the Act, 2013 in letter and spirit and to make the Internal Complaints Committee viable and independent, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab And Sindh Bank and other Vs Durgesh Kuwar, (2020) SCC Online SC 774 (para 2), held that clause C of Section 4 (2) indicates that one member of the ICC has to be drawn from amongst a non-governmental organization Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 65 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 or association committed to the cause of women or a person familiar with issues relating to sexual harassment. The purpose of having such a member is to ensure the presence of an independent person who can aid, advise and assist the committee and thereby it obviates an institutional bias.
35. It may be noted that on the allegation of sexual harassment based on the report of the Internal Committee constituted at the school level teachers in contravention of the provision of the Act, 2013 and law, action was taken against one of the teachers, namely Sri Pawan Kumar Niroula working as a TGT in JNV, by invoking the pari materia provision like the Article 81B of the KVS Code. He, after becoming unsuccessful to remedy his grievance before the CAT, Kolkata Bench in OA No. 352/09/SKM/2021 dated 05.10.2021, approached before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in WP.CT No. 86 of 2021. The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in its order dated 24.01.2022 held that "as per Section 2(a) of the Act, an aggrieved woman means in relation to a workplace, a woman, of any age whether employed or not, who alleges to have been subjected to any act of sexual harassment by the respondent. That being so, Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 66 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 the provisions of the Act squarely apply to the students of the school' and since 'the committee constituted for summary trial without adhering to the mandatory requirements of the law and the rules loses its legal force'. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta vide order dated 24.01.2022 in WP.CT No. 86 of 2021 quashed the order of the CAT, Kolkata Bench by observing as under:
" 25. Now, we may advert to another relevant provision of the aforesaid Act. Section 11 of the Sexual Harrasment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, inter alia, provides that the internal complaints committee, shall, where the respondent is an employee, proceed to make inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent. After the Sexual Harrasment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 came into force the relevant service rules viz Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 were suitably amended. Rule 3C of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, amongst others, reads as under:
1. No Government servant shall indulge in any act of sexual harassment of any woman at any workplace.
2. Every government servant who is in-charge of a workplace shall take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment of any woman at the workplace.Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 67 O.A.260/00356 of 2022
26. For the purpose of this rule 'sexual harassment' includes anyone or more of the following acts or behaviour (whether directly or by implication) namely:
i) Physical Contact and advances; or
ii) A demand or request for sexual favours; or
iii) Making sexually coloured remarks; or
iv) Showing pornography; or
v) Any other unwelcome physical, verbal, non-
verbal conduct of a sexual nature.
27. On the other hand, the amended Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, inter alia, enjoins as follows:
Where there is a complaint of sexual harassment within the meaning of Rule 3C 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 this rule and the complaints committee shall hold, if separate procedure has not been prescribed for the complaints committee for holding the enquiry into the complaints of sexual harassment, the inquiry as far as practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in these rules.
28. In view of the legal position as above, the committee constituted for summary trial without adhering to the mandatory requirements of the law and the rules as quoted above loses its legal force. Therefore, viewed from all aspects, the impugned order passed by the Learned Tribunal holding the legality of the committee for summary trial is not sustainable in law. Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 68 O.A.260/00356 of 2022
29. Therefore, in view of the observations as above, the question as raised for resolution is answered in the negative.
30. In the result, the writ petition succeeds.
31. The impugned order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in O.A. No. 352/9/SKM/2021 is hereby set aside. The Tribunal application being No. O.A. No. 352/9/SKM/2021 is allowed.
32. The order of suspension against the petitioner vide order dated 16.02.2020 made by the respondent no. 4 and extended from time to time and the order dated 16.06.2020 by which the committee for summary trial was constituted are hereby quashed.
33. The respondent school authorities are directed to allow the petitioner to join his duties within one month from date. They are also directed to pay all the back wages to the petitioner within two months from the date of joining of his duties."
36. Thus, in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Vishaka & Ors (supra), Medha Kiotwal Lele and other (supra) and the Act, 2013, it was obligatory on the part of the KVS to form the ICC in the manner provided under the Act, 2013, quoted above. But, in this case, we find that in place of the ICC with inclusion of one member from amongst non-governmental organizations or associations committed to the cause of women or a person familiar with the issues relating to sexual harassment, the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 69 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 matter was enquired into by the Internal Committee constituted by KVS from among the Teachers of the School and, based on such report, the service of the Applicant was terminated by applying the provision of Article 81 B of KVS Code.
37. We may note that the Govt. of India has also inserted provision under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 providing therein that report of the duly constituted ICC in accordance with Act, 2013 and law shall be taken as a report of the IO to further proceed against an employee as per the rules provided therein. Article 80 of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas specifies that the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965, as amended from time to time, will apply mutatis mutandis to all the members of staff of KVS. Further, Article 81(A) provides for an exception to the rules mentioned in Article 80 and Article 81(B) provides for the termination of services of an employee found guilty of immoral behavior towards students. Since the proceedings under Article 81(B) lead to the only penalty of termination of services of the employee, if proven guilty, such cases require Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 70 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 the prescribed procedures to be followed in letter and spirit so that the correct conclusion is arrived in such cases.
38. This Bench while considering the matter cannot close its eyes to the facts, discussed above, which go to the root of the cause. Therefore, we have examined the orders impugned in this OA and we find that the entire action was taken based on the report of the Internal Committee, formed contrary and in contradiction/contravention of the Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. We have also gone through the decisions relied on by the Respondents but we find that the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal (supra), Maharana Pratap Singh (supra), so also the issue of termination/dismissal of the teacher on the basis of the report of the Internal Committee formed contrary and in contradiction/contravention of the Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 were not subject matter of consideration and, therefore, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied on by the respondents are Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 71 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 distinguishable. Hence, going through the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Ram Lal (supra), Maharana Pratap Singh (supra) and by applying the ratio decidendi/stare decisis of the decision dated 24.01.2022 in WP.CT No. 86 of 2021 of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pawan Kumar Niroula (supra), we hold that the impugned orders in the present case are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
39. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, we find that this is a fit case where after quashing the impugned order of punishment, the matter ought to have been remitted back to the authority concerned for causing the inquiry through the Committee in accordance with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 but taking into consideration the very fact that the allegation relates to 2016, the exoneration of the applicant in the criminal case and meanwhile the applicant reached the age of superannuation, while quashing the order dated 28.06.2021 and 27.04.2022 instead of remanding the matter, the respondents are hereby directed to treat the applicant to have been continuing in Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30' 72 O.A.260/00356 of 2022 service from the date of punishment till attaining the age of superannuation and granting him his entitled retirement dues treating the aforesaid period as duty for all purposes except pay. The respondents are also directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
40. In the result, this OA stands allowed to the extent stated above. No costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
KB/PS
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera,
o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.17 16:45:38 +05'30'