Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Umesh Babu M vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 2 March, 2026
1
OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00228/2023
ORDER RESERVED ON: 24.02.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 02.03.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
Shri Umesh Babu M.
S/o Malkappa,
Aged about 56 years,
Resident of Diggaon Post,
Chittapur Taluk,
Kalaburagi District - 585 211. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar)
Vs.
1. Union of India represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resource & Development,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Navodya Vidyalaya Samiti,
Department of School Education & Literacy,
Government of India, B15, Institutional Area,
Sector 62, Noida, Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh - 201 309.
3. Hon'ble Minister of Education/Appellate
Authority, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samathi,
Room No.302-C, Shastri Bhavan,
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Suneja Date: 2026.03.02
15:56:35+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
New Delhi - 110 001. ...Respondents
(By Shri Vishnu Bhat, Senior Panel Counsel)
ORDER
PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
1. Initially, this OA was filed on 05.06.2023 for quashment of the penalty order dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure - A1). At the time of filing this O.A., the departmental appeal preferred by the applicant was pending. During pendency of the petition, the appeal was also decided. Therefore, the applicant filed MA No.109/2024 which was allowed on 06.03.2024 and the challenge against the appellate order dated 26.10.2023 (Annexure - A21) was also included. At present, the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in amended OA dated 01.04.2024 are as under:-
"(a) Call for records of the case from the respondents and on perusal.
(b) Quash and set aside the impugned penalty Order passed in F No.8-3/(1)/2019-NVS(E.III)/27307-10 dated 12.9.2022 (Annexure A1) passed by the second respondent.
(c) Quash and set aside the appellate order bearing No. 8-3(1)/2019-NVS(E.III) dated 26.10.2023 (Annexure A21) passed by the third respondent and consequently issue a direction to the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service with all consequential benefits including the back wages, service seniority and other benefits.Digitally signed by
Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 3 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE (d) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Tribunal
deems fit to grant to the applicant in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs of this OA in the interests of justice."
2. Facts of the Case
a) The applicant was appointed as Arts Teacher on 25.03.1995 at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Koraput, Orissa. Thereafter, he was transferred on 04.08.2001 to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mundargi, Gadag district and he joined on 04.08.2001.
b) A written complaint regarding moral turpitude involving exhibition of immoral sexual behaviour towards girl students was received against the applicant and respondents conducted a fact finding enquiry in which the allegations were found proved. Thereafter, in exercising the power confirmed under the provision of Notification No. 14-2/93-NVS (Vig.) dated 20.12.1993 a Summary Trial Committee was constituted in which the following Members were included:-
Mrs. Kiran Chandra, Ex-Dy Commissioner (Trg), NVS, Hqrs - Convenor Shri A.B. Bharadwaj, Ex-Asst Commissioner (Acad), NVS, Hqrs - Member Shri S. Chandrashekharan, Ex-Asst. Commissioner (Trg) NVS, Hqrs
- Member Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 4 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
c) The Committee submitted the Report dated 04.03.2013 in which the applicant was found guilty. Therefore, his services were terminated vide order dated 16.04.2013 (Annexure - A5).
d) The applicant challenged the aforesaid order before the CAT, Bangalore Bench by filing OA No.285/2014 which was dismissed on 02.06.2014.
e) Against the dismissal of the aforesaid OA, the applicant filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench. The aforesaid Writ Petition No.205259/2014 (S-CAT) was decided by the High Court on 12.03.2019 and the High Court observed that serious allegations were levelled against the petitioner and the major penalty has been imposed therefore, applicant was entitled to adduce evidence and cross-examination of the official respondents, even though examination and cross-examination is not permissible in respect of girl students in a matter of sexual harassment. Thereafter, the High Court quashed the Tribunal order dated 02.06.2014 passed in OA No.285/2014 and also quashed the termination order. In para 5 and 6, the High Court stated:-
"5. In view of the aforesaid decision, petitioner is entitled for full-fledged domestic enquiry. It is made clear that petitioner cannot insist evidence of girl students in a domestic enquiry. Perusal of records it is evident that a committee was constituted headed by lady Deputy Commissioner to look into the allegations leveled against Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 5 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE petitioner. Committee formed opinion that allegations were proved. Such proceedings are like preliminary enquiry. Thereafter, petitioner is entitled to examination and cross- examination of author of the committee report in an enquiry to that extent he is entitled to opportunity in a domestic enquiry, such proceedings have not been held. Moreover, it is only stated petitioner was provided opportunity, but he should have been provided copy of the committee report and sought his explanation. These procedures were also not held.
6. Under these circumstances order of termination as well as order of the Tribunal dated 02.06.2014 passed in O.A.No.285/2014 are set aside. Reserving liberty to the official respondents to proceed with domestic enquiry in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. Such enquiry proceedings shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. Writ petition stands allowed."
f) Thereafter, the applicant filed Contempt Petition No.200054/2020 (Civil) before the High Court against (1) Shri Vinayak Garg, Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi, (2) Smt. G. Anusuya, Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi, and (3) Shri K. Subhashini, Principal, J.N.V, Korlahalli. The aforesaid Contempt Petition was decided by the High Court on 09.07.2021 vide Annexure - A3. During pendency of the contempt petition, the applicant was re-instated vide order (Annexure - A6) dated 29.06.2021. The aforesaid facts was brought in the notice of the High Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 6 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Court. Thereafter, the High Court disposed of the aforesaid petition and mentioned in paras 3 to 5 as under:-
"3. Learned counsels for the respondents-accused filed affidavit enclosing copy of the order dated 28.06.2021 reinstating the complainant and posting him to JNV East Khasi Hills-II (Meghalaya). Subsequently, by memo dated
30.06.2021 order dated 29.06.2021 was placed on record modifying the earlier order dated 28.06.2021, reposting the complainant to JNV Chikkaballapur (Karnataka). Today memo dated 09.07.2021 is filed enclosing three documents, wherein document No.1 the order dated 08.07.2021 discloses the granting of notional re-fixation of pay to the complainant, document No.2 dated 07.07.2021 states that domestic enquiry as directed would be initiated expeditiously.
4. From the above, we are of the considered opinion that there is substantial compliance of the order dated 12.03.2019 in W.P.No.205259/2014.
5. With regard to the delay in compliance, the learned counsels would submit that the respondents had taken the matter in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court unsuccessfully. Subsequently review petition is said to have been filed and the said review petition is also dismissed on 06.07.2021. Therefore, they submit that there is some delay in implementing the order of this Court. They tender unconditional apology for the delay in implementing the order. The unconditional apology tendered by the respondents is accepted and the contempt proceedings dropped."
g) The respondents also filed SLP (Civil) bearing Diary No.37714/2019 against the order passed by the High Court on Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 7 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 12.03.2019 (Annexure - A2), but the aforesaid SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 18.11.2019 and the Review Petition Diary No.5707/2021 was also dismissed. After the aforesaid dismissal of the review petition, the respondents re-instated the applicant and filed a memo dated 30.06.2021 before the High Court during the pendency of the Contempt Petition stated above.
h) After the aforesaid development, on 17.08.2021 the respondents again re-constituted a Committee for domestic enquiry in which the following Members were included:-
Smt. G. Anusuya, DC, NVS, RO, Hyderabad - Convenor Shri Dravidmani, AC, NVS, RO, Hyderabad - Member Mrs. Vijaya Kumari, Principal, JNV, Guntur (AP) - Member
i) The Committee submitted the Report which was communicated to the applicant alongwith letter Annexure - A16 dated 07.07.2022 and the applicant submitted his reply on 24.07.2022 (Annexure - A17). Thereafter, the impugned order (Annexure - A1) was passed on 12.09.2022 and the services of applicant were terminated.
j) Against the aforesaid order, present OA was initially filed on 05.06.2023. The applicant already submitted his appeal dated 18.10.2022 (Annexure - A19) before the Appellate Authority and the Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 8 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE aforesaid appeal was also dismissed vide Annexure - A21 dated 26.10.2023.
3. The applicant challenged and sought quashment of the termination order / penalty order dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure - A1) and the appellate order dated 26.10.2023 (Annexure - A21). It is submitted by the applicant that the services of the applicant were outstanding and he earned goodwill of all the students and parents. There was no any complaint against him. The service of the applicant was illegally terminated vide order dated 16.04.2013. Therefore, the aforesaid order was quashed by the High Court in Writ Petition order dated 12.03.2019 (Annexure - A2). The services of the applicant have been again illegally terminated by the respondents. In the enquiry, there was a clear violation of natural justice. At the time of final arguments, the applicant raised only two points regarding the enquiry:-
a) The relevant documents were not supplied to the applicant, therefore, prejudice has been caused.
b) Smt. G. Anusuya, Deputy Commissioner, NVS was the Member of the re-constituted Domestic Enquiry Committee and she was biased against the applicant because the applicant made her a Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 9 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE party by name in the Contempt Petition No.200054/2020 before the High Court.
4. In addition to the aforesaid two points, it was also argued by the counsel for applicant that the order passed by the High Court was not complied by the respondents in true sense. Opportunity of cross- examination of the authors of the previous Committee report was not provided.
5. The respondents opposed the aforesaid petition by filing the reply statement on 23.11.2023. It is submitted by the respondents that any sufficient ground has not been made out from the petition. Proper enquiry was conducted as per Rules. Sufficient opportunities were also provided to the applicant. Relevant documents were also given to the applicant. The concerned Deputy Commissioner was not prejudiced against the applicant. She alongwith other two members conducted the enquiry in a fair manner. The applicant did not include the aforesaid Deputy Commissioner as a party in this petition, while in case of allegation related to the bias, the concerned person should also be made the party in this petition.
6. The applicant says that the order of the High Court was not duly complied by the respondents. The High Court passed the order Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 10 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE dated 12.03.2019. It appears from the order (Annexure - A3) passed in Contempt Petition [referred above] that the High Court came to the conclusion that the order has been substantially complied.
7. It is contended by the applicant that the petitioner was entitled to examination and cross-examination of the authors of the Committee report as per High Court order dated 12.03.2019 (Annexure - A2). It appears from the pleadings of the applicant that the aforesaid allegation is not correct. In para 5.6 of the OA, the applicant himself admitted that the aforesaid opportunity to cross-examine was given and the applicant himself denied to cross-examine because in view of the applicant that was not meaningful. In para 5.6 it is pleaded:-
"5.6. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in para 5 of its order dated 12.3.2019 (Annexure A2) clearly observed that the report of the committee is like preliminary enquiry and the applicant is entitled for examination and cross examination of author of the committee report in an enquiry and to that extent he is entitled to opportunity in a domestic enquiry which has not been held. However, in the reconstituted committee the authors of the earlier committee members were called online for the said purpose. The same served no purpose as the respondents themselves reconstituted a different committee and examining the author of the earlier report is of no avail. In that view of the matter the applicant declined to examine the members of the earlier committee. In view of this there has been violation of direction of Hon'ble High Court stated Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 11 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE supra and, therefore, the impugned termination order is liable to be set aside."
8. Therefore, the aforesaid allegation regarding denial of cross- examination of the authors of the Committee report is not correct. The opportunity was given. If the applicant himself denied the aforesaid opportunity, then he is not entitled to get any benefit upon the aforesaid ground.
9. Another ground raised by the applicant is related to the non- supply of the relevant documents. During arguments, the Bench asked the question to the counsel for applicant to highlight some documents which are in view of the applicant, where relevant documents are not provided by the Inquiry Officer. But the applicant did not shows or highlighted any document. He did not even indicate the type of documents which were relevant and not supplied to the applicant.
10. As far as documents are concerned, the position has been clearly mentioned in the Inquiry report itself. Some documents were provided to the applicant, some documents were provided for perusal and reasons of denial in reference to some documents are also stated in the aforesaid Report. For better appreciation, the following part of the Report may be mentioned which clearly highlights the position:-
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 12 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
"AND WHEREAS, the representation of Shri Umesh Babu M was examined by the Committee and observed that it is a domestic inquiry that is being conducted as per Notification of NVS dated 20.12.1993 regarding summary inquiry in the matters of exhibition of unnatural sexual behaviour towards girl students of NVS. The domestic Inquiry is not a regular Inquiry as per CCS rules hence no question would be arised to given the defence assistant. Further, with respect to the request of the applicant for providing the copy of the documents, it was informed to him that the documents sought by him contained the name of the complainants, accordingly, to maintain the safety & security of the girl students as well as to prevent the identity disclosed in the public domain, Shri Umesh Babu M could be permitted to go through the contents of the documents & complaints as desired by him but not allowed to take the copy of the same for his personal record.
AND WHEREAS, the domestic inquiry was conducted on 19 & 20 May 2022 in order to comply with the order dated 12.03.2019 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburgi bench. The copies of the following relevant documents were supplied/provided to Shri Umesh Babu .M to defend the case.
i. Summary Trial Report (28 pages) ii. Preliminary Inquiry report of Sh. V Venkat Reddy, Ex. Assistant Commissioner & Cluster I/c (3 pages) iii.Statement dated 22.03.2012 made by Ms. Kalyani, Former Principal, JNY, Gadag (2 pages) iv. Statement dated 19.03.2012 made by Ms. Rajeswari R Nair, TGT & HM JNV, Gadag (1 page) v. Statement dated 23.03.2012 made by Smt. Shinee Bhuvanesan Nair, TGT (English) (2 pages) vi. Complaint dated 22.03.2012 made by the students of JNV Gadag, Karnataka to the Assistant Commissioner (2 pages) Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 13 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Opportunities provided to Shri Umesh Babu M. to defend his case adhering to the rules of natural justice:
i. Opportunity to examine & cross examine the Summary Trial committee members including the previous summary trial committee members who were joined online due to age related health issues.
ii. Opportunity to submit the defence was also extended to Shri Umesh Babu.
iii.Opportunity to inspect the all copies of the original complaint of the girl students and other relevant documents. Opportunity of inspection of the documents has duly been acknowledged by Shri Umesh Babu M."
11. Therefore, it appears that the allegation regarding non-
supply of the documents is also found baseless. Sufficient opportunities were provided to the applicant to peruse the documents and also the copies of documents were supplied to the applicant. The applicant is unable to show the existence of any document which was not provided to him that caused any prejudice to him.
12. Now, we can consider the allegation related to the "biased" against Smt. G. Anusuya, Deputy Commissioner, Member of the Committee.
13. In the case of State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta, (2013) 3 SCC 1, on the doctrine of bias, it has been said in para 58 to 60:-
"58. Absence of bias can be defined as the total absence of any preconceived notions in the mind of the authority/Judge, Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 14 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE and in the absence of such a situation it is impossible to expect a fair deal/trial and no one would therefore see any point in holding/participating in one as it would serve no purpose. The Judge/authority must be able to think dispassionately and submerge any private feelings with respect to each aspect of the case. The apprehension of bias must be reasonable i.e. which a reasonable person would be likely to entertain. Bias is one of the limbs of natural justice. The doctrine of bias emerges from the legal maxim nemo debet esse judex in propria causa. It applies only when the interest attributed to an individual is such so as to tempt him to make a decision in favour of, or to further his own cause. There may not be a case of actual bias, or an apprehension to the effect that the matter most certainly will not be decided or dealt with impartially but where the circumstances are such so as to create a reasonable apprehension in the minds of others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision, the same is sufficient to invoke the doctrine of bias.
59. In the event that actual proof of prejudice is available, the same will naturally make the case of a party much stronger, but the availability of such proof is not a necessary precondition, for what is relevant, is actually the reasonableness of the apprehension in this regard in the mind of such party. In case such apprehension exists the trial / judgment / order, etc. would stand vitiated for want of impartiality and such judgment/order becomes a nullity. The trial becomes coram non judice.
60. While deciding upon such an issue, the court must examine the facts and circumstances of the case and examine the matter from the viewpoint of the people at large. The question as regards "whether or not a real likelihood of bias exists must be determined on the basis of probabilities that are inferred from the circumstances of the case by the court objectively or upon the basis of the impression that may reasonably be left upon the minds of Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 15 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE those aggrieved or the public at large". (Vide S. Parthasarathi v. State of A.P. [(1974) 3 SCC 459 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 580 : AIR 1973 SC 2701], State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna [(2001) 2 SCC 330 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1010:
AIR 2001 SC 343], N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India [(2012) 4 SCC 653] and State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar [(2011) 14 SCC 770 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1034 : AIR 2012 SC 364]. [Emphasis supplied]
14. High Court of Allahabad in the case of Shailja Srivastava v. Banaras Hindu University, 1992 SCC OnLine All 465, referred A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262 = AIR 1970 SC 150, G. Sarana v. Lucknow University, (1976) 3 SCC 585 := AIR 1976 SC 2428, J. Mahapatra & Co. v. State of Orissa, (1984) 4 SCC 103 = AIR 1984 SC 1572, K. Chellaih v. Chiamman, AIR 1973 Mad 122, Kirti Deshmankar v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 104,, Rex v. Darnsley, M.B.S., [1976] 3 All ER 452, and said that from the above decisions the following principles relating to the rule of bias emerge:
"(1) It is not necessary to establish actual bias. A reasonable apprehension or likelihood of bias is sufficient to vitiate the proceedings....... As stated by Garner in his Administrative Law "Turning our attention to the substance of the rule relating to bias, the first point to emphasise is that it is not necessary to prove actual bias. The natural justice bias rule looks to external appearances rather than the proof of actual improper exercise of power". In this connection Geoffrey Flick in his book Natural Justice has mentioned "There are two established lines of authority, one Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 16 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE to the effect that an interest will disqualify if it gives rise to a real likelihood of bias, the other to the effect that all that is needed is a reasonable suspicion of bias. It is the reasonable suspicion test which currently seems to hold sway." It may also be pointed out here that in the case of Kirti Deshmankar (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has used the words "reasonable likelihood of bias", and not "real likelihood of bias". This distinction between real likelihood and reasonable likelihood is important, and in my opinion, even if there is no real likelihood of bias, a reasonable likelihood from the point of view of the petitioners will vitiate the proceedings. In G. Sarana's case (supra) the test laid down was "Whether there is a substantial possibility of bias animating the mind of the member against the aggrieved party."
(2) Even if one member of the selection committee suffers from the disqualification of the rule of bias, then the entire selection or proceeding is vitiated because it is not possible to known as to what extent such disqualified member influenced the others.
(3) Where a person is disqualified due to rule of bias, he should disassociate himself from the proceedings. (4) Bias in a member of a recommendatory body will also vitiate the proceedings."
15. In a recent case of Pramod Kumar Bajaj Vs. Union of India and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 127 = 2026 INSC 101 [30.01.2026] the Supreme court considered the Rule against bias, mala fide actions & protracted persecution. The court also referred aforesaid two case i.e. State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta, (2013) 3 SCC Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 17 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 1, and Shailja Srivastava v. Banaras Hindu University, 1992 SCC OnLine All 465 and observed :-
"The court said where statutory or administrative power is exercised for purposes extraneous to those for which it is conferred, or is influenced by irrelevant considerations, or is actuated by malice in law, such exercise cannot be sustained. The rule against bias would certainly be attracted where the person / authority intrinsically involved in the evaluation process has a personal connection with, personal interest in, or prior involvement in the matter under consideration, or has earlier taken a position which he may be interested in sustaining. The doctrine is applied not only to avoid the possibility of a partial decision but also to preserve public confidence in the impartiality of the decision-making process. The Court referred State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta, (2013) 3 SCC 1 on the doctrine of bias. ............................."
43. We may also gainfully refer to the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Shailja Srivastava v. Banaras Hindu University, 1992 SCC OnLine All 465, wherein the following observations were made:
....................
The aforesaid observations made by this Court makes it clear that an authority exercising adjudicatory or selection functions must not only act fairly but must also appear to act fairly, for justice must manifestly be seen to be done. The rule against bias would certainly be attracted where the person /authority intrinsically involved in the evaluation process has a personal connection with, personal interest in, or prior involvement in the matter under consideration, or has earlier taken a position which he may be interested in sustaining. The doctrine is applied not only to avoid the possibility of a partial decision but also to preserve public Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 18 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE confidence in the impartiality of the decision-making process."
Again in para 44 the Supreme Court said:-
"44. The rule of law constitutes the foundation of a well- governed society, and the shadow of bias or mala fides in the exercise of power concerning public functions strikes at the very root of a regulated social order. The law relating to mala fide exercise of power has been the subject matter of discussion in a catena of decisions of this Court.[ Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 10; Jaichand Lal Sethia v. State of W.B., 1966 SCC OnLine SC 96; E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 : AIR 1974 SC 555; Jaichand Lal Sethia v. State of W.B, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 96.] It has been consistently held that where statutory or administrative power is exercised for purposes extraneous to those for which it is conferred, or is influenced by irrelevant considerations, or is actuated by malice in law, such exercise cannot be sustained. Judicial review in such circumstances is directed not merely at the decision but at the decision-making process itself".
16. In Annexure - A11 dated 08.04.2022, the applicant submitted the request to the Commissioner, NVS. It is stated in the aforesaid letter that vide letter dated 24.03.2022, Smt. G. Anusuya denied copies of the documents and she was doing deliberate act of contempt of orders dated 12.03.2019 in Writ Petition No. 205259/2014. This letter was based upon the letter of Deputy Commissioner dated 24.03.2022. The copy of the aforesaid letter is also available on record Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 19 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE at page nos. 49 and 57 of the paper book. It is stated in the aforesaid letter:-
" With reference to the above captioned subject, it is to inform that your representation dated 16.11.2021 is examined /considered but your request for engaging a Defense Assistant could not be acceded to since the inquiry being held against you is not an inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 but is being conducted as per the notification of NVS for exhibition of unnatural sexual behavior by employees of NVS towards girl students studying in JNVs.
Further, your request for supply of documents and verification of original documents under Sub Rule 11 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 is also not allowed. However, you will be permitted to go through the contents of available documents as requested by you related to the case and verify them in the presence of Inquiry committee. Further, submission of defense documents by you will be considered but not producing witnesses before the inquiry committee.
In this regard, Domestic Inquiry is scheduled to be held on 19/04/22 at 10.00 AM at this Regional Office to inquire in to the allegations leveled against you. Therefore, you are directed to appear before the enquiry committee constituted for the said purpose on the date and time specified above failing which the inquiry will be held ex- parte."
17. On 27.04.2022, the applicant also sent Annexure - A12 to Smt. G. Anusuya and two other persons, Shri Dravidmani, Asst. Commissioner and Mrs. Vijaya Kumari, Member of Disciplinary Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 20 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Committee. In this letter, the request was only made for giving due opportunity and conduct the enquiry according to law.
18. Annexure - A13 was the biased petition against Smt. G. Anusuya dated 05.05.2022. In the aforesaid petition, the applicant mentioned as under:-
"Respected Madam, Please refer your letter dtd. 24/03/2022 scheduling inquiry in my case. It is to mention that, you were one of the contemnors in CCC No. 200054/2020 field before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Karnataka for not implementing the order dtd. 12/03/2019 of High Court in WP No.205259/2014. Hence, I am not hopeful of FAIR TRIAL guaranteeing Principles of Natural Justice from the committee which you are heading. Moreover since you have turned down my request for copies of documents, engaging a Defence assistant vide your letter dtd. 24/03/2022 in all likelihood you will be BIASED in conducting inquiry in a fair manner.
Hence, this Bias petition requesting to constitute on impartial committee to conduct the proceedings as per High Court order and instructions of Mrs.ManikuntalaSarkar, Salahakar (Est-3), NVS vide her letter dtd.17/08/2021"
19. The Deputy Commissioner replied to the aforesaid letter on the same date and informed the applicant:-
"Sub: Domestic Inquiry against Shri M. Umesh Babu, Art Teacher, JNV, Chikballapura, Karnataka-Reg. Sir, With reference to the above captioned subject, it is to inform that your representation dated 05.05-2022 is Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 21 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE examined /considered and the documents required by you have been issued. However, it is to reiterate that your request for engaging a Defense Assistant could not be acceded to since the inquiry being held against you is not an inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 but is being conducted as per the notification of NVS for exhibition of unnatural sexual behavior by employees of NVS towards girl students studying in JNVs.
In pursuance of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburgi Bench, a fair opportunity to examine and cross examine the author of the summary trial committee is also been arranged.
In this regard, Domestic Inquiry is scheduled to be held on 19/05/22 at 10.00 AM at this Regional Office to inquire in to the allegations leveled against you. If required, the proceedings will be extended for the next day. Therefore, you are directed to appear before the enquiry committee constituted for the said purpose on the date and time specified above failing which the inquiry will be held ex- parte."
20. Therefore, it appears that the appropriate reply was given and proper explanation was also contained in the reply.
21. This ground that "Smt. G. Anusuya was the party in the Contempt Petition, therefore, she was biased against the applicant" is also not acceptable. It appears from the order passed by the High Court in the Contempt Petition that the aforesaid officer was included as a party only in her official capacity because at that time she was holding the post of Deputy Commissioner. As per order dated 12.03.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.205259/2014, the High Court Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 22 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE found that the sufficient compliance has been made. The delay in compliance was also condoned upon the ground that the respondents preferred the SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court and thereafter, they also filed the Review Petition before the Supreme Court. Any order against Smt. G. Anusuya was not passed by the High Court in the Contempt Petition. The officer was the party, only in the capacity of official post, then it cannot be said that she was prejudiced against the employee. The explanation related to the documents is clearly given in the Inquiry Report and the letters referred above. The applicant is unable to point out any substantive act or the conduct of Smt. G. Anusuya for proving the fact of bias. It is also required to be mentioned here that if an employee made an allegation related to the bias act of any officer, then the aforesaid officer should also be made a party in this petition, but in this OA, the applicant did not include the aforesaid Deputy Commissioner as a respondent and any personal allegation is also not found against the aforesaid officer. Hence, the aforesaid allegation is also found incorrect.
22. Therefore, looking to the overall circumstances, it appears that the sufficient opportunities have been given to the applicant and the matter has been examined by the concerned authorities in a proper way and as per Rules. The respondents were also bound to follow the Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 23 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE order dated 20.12.1993 (Annexure - A4) and as per the aforesaid notification, the proceedings were conducted. The matter was also examined in detail at the time of passing the order of penalty. It is mentioned in the aforesaid order:-
" Art Teacher was understood by the innocent girls only when they reached in class VIII when they become a little mature. Further, as understood from the conversation & emotions expressed by the Victim during the course of domestic inquiry that the girls had undergone sexual exploitative immoral sexual behaviour exhibited by Mr. Umesh Babu M which caused trauma & duress to the adolescent girl students.
AND WHEREAS, after careful study of the case based on the records available, the examination done including Mrs. Rajeswari (HM) by the domestic inquiry committee members and the statement of the victim girls, Mr. Umesh Babu. M. had tempted the girls by giving chocolates and providing mobile phones to talk to their parents and misbehaved with them as complained to the extent of lifting their skirts, kissing them, holding them tight, asking embarrassing questions, and punishing them if they don't cooperate with him. Hence it is proved beyond the doubt from the statement of the victim girl, staff of the Vidyalaya and from the evidences collected that Shri Umesh Babu. M. had misbehaved with girls. It is also proved beyond doubt that he was in the habit of giving corporal punishments also to students including girls."
23. The Inquiry Report was also given to the applicant vide Annexure - A16 dated 07.07.2022. It appears from the Inquiry report that each and every point has been considered and sufficient opportunities have been given to the applicant. The applicant filed the Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 24 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE reply Annexure - A11, dated 24.07.2022. He raised some points in the aforesaid reply and it appears from Annexure - A1 that all relevant points have been considered. It is found that sufficient compliance has been made and proper inquiry was conducted. Looking to the act of the applicant, proper punishment has been given.
24. The appeal was also considered by the appropriate authority who passed the order Annexure - A21 and rejected the appeal. Detailed order has been passed. Each and every point has also been considered in the aforesaid order. Therefore, it appears that the matter has again been examined by the Appellate Authority and any irregularity or illegality has not been found.
25. The applicant also argued that respondents instead of holding the domestic inquiry contemplated under CCS CCA Rules, but they relied on the notification dated 20.12.1993. In para 5.3 of O.A., this ground is mentioned. Notification dated 20.12.1993 has been filed as Anx.A4.
26. The aforesaid Notification dated 20.12.1993 Anx.4 has been considered by the Supreme Court in Avinash Nagra Vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Etc. [1997] 2 SCC 534 = AIR 1997 SC 2833 = 1997[1] SLR 270[SC] [30/09/1996]. In para 6 the court observed:- Digitally signed by
Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 25 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE "6. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the dismissal of the appellant in terms of his letter of appointment is vitiated by any error of law and whether he is entitled to a full-fledged enquiry and opportunity to cross-examine the girl students who have given the statements against the appellant? The second question is whether the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition under the impugned order dated 9-1-1996?
Indisputably, the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 of the Government of India would be applicable to the employees of Navodaya Vidyalaya. The respondent is running nation-wide co-educational specialised and prestigious schools in which 1/3rd of the students are girls. With a view to ensure safety and security to the girl students, to protect their modesty and prevent their unnecessary exposure at an enquiry in relation to the conduct of a teacher resulting in sexual harassment of the girl student etc. involving misconduct or moral turpitude, resolution prescribing special summary procedure was proposed and published by notification dated 23-12-1993, after due approval of the Executives of the respondent- Samiti. The Minister of Human Resources and Development, Government of India is its Chairman. The notification postulates to dispense with regular enquiry under the Rules. In the case of a temporary employee whose integrity and conduct is doubtful but difficult to prove with sufficient documentary evidence to establish the charge and whose retention in service would be prejudicial to the interest of the institution or whose grave misconduct and the enquiry under the Rules would be likely to result in embarrassment to the class of employees or is likely to endanger the reputation of the institution, the appointing authority, for the reasons to be recorded in the file, may terminate his services in terms of the letter of appointment. The order of termination need not contain any reasons but the appointing authority has to obtain prior approval of the Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 26 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Deputy Director. Similarly, when the Director is satisfied, after summary enquiry, that there was a prima facie guilt of moral turpitude involving sexual harassment or exhibition of immoral behaviour towards any girl student, under clause (b) of the above notification, the Director "can terminate the services of that employee by giving him one month's or three months' pay and allowances in lieu thereof, depending upon whether the guilty employee is temporary or permanent in the services of the Samiti". In such cases, procedure prescribed for holding enquiry for imposing major penalty in accordance with the Rules as applicable to the employees of the respondent, shall be dispensed with provided that the Director is of the opinion that it is not expedient to hold regular enquiry on account of serious embarrassment to the student or his guardians or such other practical difficulties. The Director shall record in writing the reasons under which it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry and he shall keep the Chairman of the Samiti informed of the circumstances leading to such termination of services. It would thus be seen that in a given situation, instead of adopting the regular procedure under the Rules to terminate the services of an employee, the notification prescribes the procedure to dispense with such enquiry, subject to the conditions mentioned above. ......"
27. In the case of Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti v. Babban Prasad Yadav, (2004) 13 SCC 568 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 891 : 2003 SCC OnLine SC 615 (02.05.2003) it was the appellant's (School) argument that the specifically entitled the Director, subject to the conditions being fulfilled under the rule, to dispense with the enquiry against an employee who is charged with offences of moral turpitude, including immoral behaviour. Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 27 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Vidyalaya Samiti [(1997) 2 SCC 534 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 565] was also cited. The Supreme Court allowed the petition and set-aside the judgment passed by High court and said:-
"7. We are of the view that the High Court erred in reversing the decision of the Tribunal. The rule quoted earlier, explicitly deals with such a situation as obtains in the present case. The rule is not under challenge. All that is required for the court is to be satisfied that the preconditions to the exercise of power under the said rule are fulfilled. These preconditions are: (1) holding of a summary enquiry, (2) a finding in such summary enquiry that the charged employee was guilty of moral turpitude; (3) the satisfaction of the Director on the basis of such summary enquiry that the charged officer was prima facie guilty; (4) the satisfaction of the Director that it was not expedient to hold an enquiry on account of serious embarrassment to be caused to the student or his guardians or such other practical difficulties and finally; (5) the recording of the reasons in writing in support of the aforesaid".
28. In the case of Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. V. Rathin Pal SLP (C) 4627/2008, decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.08.2010, five girls' student of a class made a complaint of immoral behaviour against the respondent who was the Music teacher. The Principal of Vidyalaya constituted a team of nine teachers including a lady teacher to conduct an in house inquiry into the allegations contained in the complaint. The team of teachers recorded the statement of complainant and found that some substance Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 28 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE in the complaint. The competent authority directed Education Officer and Principal Smt. Sanyal to conduct a summary inquiry into the complaint of the students and their parents. Thereafter, the competent authority passed the termination order on 20.09.2001 under Article 81 (2) of Education Code upon the basis of the inquiry conducted by both committees. The aforesaid order was challenged before the CAT Bench, Calcutta by filing the O.A. No. 81 and 264/2002 but the Calcutta Bench dismissed the aforesaid OAs. However, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the applicant teacher and set aside the termination of the service order. The Bench also directed to reinstate the applicant with the 40% wages. But when the matter was travelled up to the Supreme Court, then the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and found that the termination order is valid, no regular inquiry was required. The court observed in last paras as under: -
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the appeal. We have also gone through the file containing the papers relating to inquiries, which was produced by learned counsel for the applicants. The file was also made available to the learned counsel for respondent for his perusal. It is not in dispute that in both the inquiries, one of which was conducted by a team of 9 teachers and the other by a a two-Member Committee, the girls, who made the complaints stood bby the allegations made in the complaints and vividly described the manner in which the respondent had sexually assaulted them. In the Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 29 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE second inquiry, the parents of the girls also repeated the allegation. Two of them also stated that they were threatened by respondent with dire consequences. Respondent did make an attempt to project himself as victim of some conspiracy but he could not produce any tangible evidence either before the Inquiry Committee or the Appellate Authority. Even before the Tribunal, he could not substantiate the charge that he was being framed up for extraneous reasons. Applicant No. 1 scrutinized the statements of the girl students and their parents and felt convinced that it would not be reasonable and practicable to conduct an inquiry under the 1965 Rules because the same would cause serious embarrassment to the girls, who were aged 11 to 12 years and their parents and would also vitiate the atmosphere of the school. Therefore, it is not possible to find any fault with the decision taken by appellant No. 1 to dispense with the regular inquiry and invoke Article 81 (b) of the Education Code. In its order dated 3.4.2003, the Tribunal recorded cogent reasons for negating the respondent's challenge to the termination of his service, but the High Court upset that order as also the one passed by appellant No. 1 without even adverting to the reasons recorded by him for dispensing with the inquiry.
The High Court's observation that appellant No. 1 had not recorded his satisfaction on the desirability of dispensing with the regular inquiry is clearly erroneous. A reading of the order extracted in the earlier part of this judgment shows that appellant No. 1 had independently analyzed the statements of the girl students and their parents and came to the conclusion that it was not expedient to conduct regular inquiry because that would embarrass the girl students and their parents and would also vitiate atmosphere of the school. The reasons assigned by appellant No. 1 cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as extraneous or irrelevant to the exercise of power under Article 81 (b) of the Education Code.
Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 30 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
As a sequel to the above discussion, we hold that the High Court committed serious error by quashing/setting aside the order of punishment passed by appellant No. 1 and the one passed by the Tribunal dismissing the application filed by respondent. 1."
29. In the case of Dr. Indra Dutt Pandey v. Central Administrative Tribunal Writ Appeal No. 1168/2005, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court passed the Judgment on 07.12.2016 and it is found that the dispensing of the regular inquiry and the termination of the applicant was justified. In para-33, the D.B. mentioned, as under: -
"33. In the present case, petitioner was a Principal of a Secondary Educational Institution where girl students were also studying. Complaints of indecent sexual behaviour and molestation on the part of Principal with girls students was confirmed in summary inquiry conducted by Committee constituted by Authorities of KV Sangathan who is authorized to do so under the rules. This material was made available to petitioner along with accusation and he was given opportunity to submit reply in which in a guarded manner he admitted some part of incident with a girl student though not in the same way as was complained by the said girl student. In the entirety of facts and circumstances and material available before competent authority, it found petitioner guilty of allegations and charges leveled against him.In these circumstances, following procedure prescribed in rules which permits dispensation of regular enquiry, petitioner has been terminated. It cannot be said that procedure followed by authority concerned is illegal or there is denial of adequate opportunity of defence particularly when action taken is squarely within the Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 31 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE procedure prescribed under Article 81 (B) of Education Code for KV."
30. The Calcutta Bench of the High Court in Debashish Debnath vs. U.O.I., WPCT No. 357 of 2007, Judgment dated 23.06.2011 also placed the reliance upon the case of Avinash Nagra, Babban Prasad and Rathin Pal case (supra) and said that the petitioner was a teacher engaged in Navodaya Vidyalaya, has found guilty of immoral sexual behaviour indulging the sexual harassment of minor girls of class 11. The Court said that it was not expected of a teacher to express his romantic feeling of one of his student studying in the same school and then forcing her to agree to his proposal. The charge of immoral sexual conduct was proved. The delinquent was offered adequate opportunity to defend. The Court found that the passing of the dismissal order is proper and there is no any fault.
31. In the case of Yogendra Nath v. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan W.P. (C) 510/2014 and C.M. No. 1024/2014, decided by Division Bench of Delhi High Court on 04.02.2014, the applicant was terminated from service upon the basis of allegation of moral turpitude against the petitioner who was a school teacher. The Court found that there is no infirmity in the proceeding against him. In this case, the order was passed under Article 81 (2) and the Court Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 32 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE said that the applicant was not entitled to cross examination of the victim in the proceeding against him. In this case, the reliance was also placed upon the Avinash Nagra case. The Court said in para-22 that in the case of Avinash Nagra, similar objection raised by the petitioner, was rejected by the Supreme Court. It was held that the fair procedure to be adopted in such case would be that a show cause notice containing the charge and the fact in support of the charge together with the statement recorded in the preliminary inquiry along with the report of the preliminary inquiry should be given to the charged person and such charged person would be given an opportunity to submit his explanation without having the right to cross examination of the witnesses.
32. Therefore the argument of applicant that instead of holding the domestic inquiry contemplated under CCS CCA Rules, respondent relied on the notification dated 20.12.1993, having no any force, and liable to be rejected.
33. As for as punishment of dismissal is concerned, in view of this court proper punishment has been given. The role played by a teacher, especially when dealing with students in primary schools, is of utmost importance. Teachers educate the young minds, much like sculptors shaping clay, to mould them into better human beings. The imprint a Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 33 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE teacher leaves on the minds of their students is everlasting. In reference of the conduct of 'Teacher', the statements of various respected person of society are mentioned in para 10 and 11 of Avinash Nagra vs. Navoday Vidyalaya Samiti etc., 1997 AGR-SC- 2833 = 1997 (2) SCC 534 (dt. 30.09.1996). The Supreme Court mentioned that:
"10. Mahatma Gandhiji, the Father of the Nation has stated that -
"a teacher cannot be without character. If he lacks it, he will be like salt without its savour. A teacher must touch the hearts of his students. Boys imbibe more from the teacher's own life than they do from books. If teacher impart all the knowledge in the world to their students but do not inculcate truth and purity amongst them, they will have betrayed them."
Shri Aurobindo has stated that-
"it is the teacher's province to hold aloft the torch to insist at all times and at all places that this nation of ours was founded on idealism and that whatever may be the prevailing tendencies of the times, our children shall learn to live among the sub-lit peaks."
Dr. S. Radhakrishnan has stated that-
"we in our country look upon teacher as gurus or, as acharyas. An Acharya is one whose achar or conduct is exemplary. He must be an example of Sadachar or good conduct. He must inspire the pupils who are entrusted to his care with love of virtue and goodness. The ideal of a true teacher is andhakaraniridhata gurur itya bhidhiyate. Andhakar is not merely intellectual ignorance, but is also spiritual blindness. He who is able to remove that kind of Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 34 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE spiritual blindness is called a guru. Are we deserving the _____ appellation of an acharya or a guru?"
Swami Vivekananda had stated that-
"the student should live from his very boyhood with one whose character is a blazing fire and should have before him a living example of the highest teaching. In our country, the imparting of knowledge has always been through men of renunciation. The charge of imparting knowledge should again fall upon the shoulder of Tyagis."
11. It is this backdrop, therefore, that the Indian society has elevated the teacher as 'Guru Brahma, Gurur Vishnu Guru Devo Maheswarara'. As Brahma, the teacher creates knowledge, learning, wisdom and also creates our of his students, men and women, equipped with ability and knowledge, discipline and intellectualism to enable them to face the challenges of their lives. As Vishnu, the teacher is preserver of learning. As Maheswara, he destroys ignorance. Obviously, therefore, the teacher was placed on the pedestal below the parents."
34. The status of a teacher is well said in the Sanskrit verse taken from Guru Gita which is said to be part of Visvasaratantra from Uttarakhand of Skandapurana. The same is reproduced hereunder:
"Gurur Brahma Gurur Vishnu, Gurur Devo Maheshwara; Guru Sakshat Param Brahma, Tasmai Shri Gurave Namah"
This Shloka refers to the Guru as none other than Brahma-The creator, Vishnu-The sustainer and Shiva-The destroyer, since the Guru creates, sustains knowledge and destroys ignorance. By doing so he Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 35 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE liberates the disciple from the ocean of samsara, from the trap of Maya, thereby attaining Moksha. For this, we bow down with utter humility and total gratitude to the Guru.
35. On number of occasions the importance of role of teachers was highlighted by Supreme Court. In Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of School Education, (1989) 1 SCC 392, Court opined that a teacher should have the quality to inspire and motivate his students. Relevant para thereof is extracted as under:
"20. ....... Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role of teachers is central to all processes of formal education. The teacher alone could bring out the skills and intellectual capabilities of students. He is the "engine" of the educational system. He is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values. He needs to be endowed and energised with needed potential to deliver enlightened service expected of him. His quality should be such as would inspire and motivate into action the benefiter. He must keep himself abreast of ever changing conditions. He is not to perform in a wooden and unimaginative way. He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse nobler and national ideas in younger minds. His involvement in national integration is more important, indeed indispensable."
36. The observations made by Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, (1992) 4 SCC 435, pertaining to the role of a teacher are extracted hereunder: Digitally signed by
Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 36 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE "12. ....... The teacher plays pivotal role in moulding the career, character and moral fibres and aptitude for educational excellence in impressive young children.
Formal education needs proper equipping of the teachers to meet the challenges of the day to impart lessons with latest techniques to the students on secular, scientific and rational outlook. A well-equipped teacher could bring the needed skills and intellectual capabilities to the students in their pursuits. The teacher is adorned as Gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is a principal instrument to awakening the child to the cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline. The teachers, therefore, must keep abreast of ever-changing techniques, the needs of the society and to cope up with the psychological approach to the aptitudes of the children to perform that pivotal role. In short teachers need to be endowed and energised with needed potential to serve the needs of the society. The qualitative training in the training colleges or schools would inspire and motivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For equipping such trainee students in a school or a college, all facilities and equipments are absolutely necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no place to exist nor entitled to recognition. In that behalf compliance of the statutory requirements is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education."
37. In Sushmita Basu v. Ballygunge Siksha Samity (2006) 7 SCC 680, Court again had occasion to deal with the pivotal role played by the teachers in moulding the lives of students at their primitive age and sacrifice they are required to make. Relevant para thereof is extracted hereunder:
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 37 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE "5. We must remember that the profession of teaching is a noble profession. It is not an employment in the sense of it being merely an earner of bread and butter. A teacher fulfils a great role in the life of the nation. He is the "guru". It is the teacher, who moulds its future citizens by imparting to his students not only knowledge, but also a sense of duty, righteousness and dedication to the welfare of the nation, in addition to other qualities of head and heart........ A teacher's profession calls for a little sacrifice in the interests of the nation. The main asset of a teacher is his students, former and present. Teachers who have lived up to ideals are held in great esteem by their disciples. The position of the guru, the teacher, in our ethos is equal to that of God (Matha Pitha Guru Daivam). The teachers of today must ensure that this great Indian concept and the reverential position they hold, is not sacrificed at the altar of avarice."
38. The importance of a teacher as narrated by Pandit Mohan Malaviya (the founder of the Banaras Hindu University) was highlighted in the following lines:
"... It lies largely in his teacher's hand to mould the mind of the child who I father of the man. If he is patriotic and devoted to the national cause and realizes his responsibility, he can produce a race of patriotic men and women who would religiously place the country above the community and national gain above communal advantage."
39. Therefore, it appears that strong character is expected from a Teacher who is a God for the students and also the custodian of students, but the conduct of the applicant is entirely opposite to the expected conduct. Looking to the overall, circumstances and the post Digitally signed by Mikasha Mikasha Suneja Location: CAT Bangalore Suneja Date: 2026.03.02 15:56:35+05'30' 38 OA.No.170/00228/2023/CAT/BANGALORE held by the applicant including his act which was proved, in view of this Court, proper punishment has been awarded. It cannot be said that the punishment is too harsh. Such type of teachers should not remain in school otherwise, the future of so many students will be affected. Hence, no interference is required in the punishment also.
40. The applicant is also unable to highlight any illegality. The points raised by the applicant have no force. All points have been considered and the opinion of this Court is also given in the previous paras. No any ground is found to interfere in the penalty order or the appellate order.
41. Therefore, the OA is dismissed. All pending MA(s), if any will be treated as disposed of.
42. Both parties shall bear their own costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ms/
Digitally signed by
Mikasha Mikasha Suneja
Location: CAT
Bangalore
Suneja Date: 2026.03.02
15:56:35+05'30'