Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Date Of Decision : 08 May vs Union Of India Through on 8 May, 2013
1 O.A. No. 217/2013 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI O.A. No. 217/2013 Date of decision : 08 May, 2013. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. BASHEER, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE SHRI R.C. JOSHI, MEMBER (A) Shri Gokul Rajaramji Ingle Ex-PRT K V Aurangabad Cantt, R/at HIG 54, Mhada Colony, N 2 Cidco, Near Vasant Dada Patil High School, Aurangabad - 431 006 ... Applicant (By Advocate Shri S.P. Inamdar) Versus 1. Union of India through, The Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Shastri Bhawan Gate 6, Room No. 311, C-Wing, New Delhi 110 016. 2. Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, (Vigilance Section), 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi 110 016. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Now the Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Mumbai Region, IIT Campus Powai, Mumbai 400 076. 4. Mrs. Savita Job, Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, At & Post Yevatmal, Maharashtra 445 001. 5. Mrs. Sunanda Pardeshi, TGT (Hindi), Kendriya Vidyalaya Aurangabad 431 005. ... Respondents 2 O.A. No. 217/2013 ORDER (Oral) PER : JUSTICE A.K. BASHEER, MEMBER (J)
The short question that arises for consideration in this Original Application is whether any interference is warranted with the order of termination of services of the applicant as primary teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya at Aurangabad.
2. On December 21, 2010, the Principal of the School received a complaint from the parent of a girl student of Class IV alleging that the applicant had misbehaved with his daughter and her two friends studying in Standard IV and V. On the basis of the above complaint, the Principal constituted a Committee on December 24, 2010, to hold a preliminary enquiry. The Committee found that the charge levelled against the applicant was prima facie established. On December 29, 2010, the principal forwarded the said Enquiry Report to the Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Mumbai Region for further action. As directed by the Deputy Commissioner, a Summary Enquiry was held by a Committee constituted by him for this purpose. The said Committee also found that the allegations made against the applicant had been established. Consequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the applicant on June 9, 2011, directing him to state reasons, if any, as to why his service should not be 3 O.A. No. 217/2013 terminated under Article 81 (B) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the said representation dated September 12, 2011, submitted by the applicant, passed Annexure A-2 order terminating his service with immediate effect. It was made clear that he would be entitled to pay and allowances as admissible under the Rules, in lieu of notice period. The above order was challenged by the applicant before the Appellate Authority, the Vice Chairman of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, who by Annexure A-1 order dated March 2, 2013 confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. These two orders are under challenge in this Original Application.
3. The gravamen of the charge against the applicant is that he had misbehaved with three small girl students studying in standard IV and V of the school. The girls had told their teachers and parents that the applicant had asked them about kissing and rape and misbehaved with them. He had touched their private parts and asked them to touch his main parts. One of the girls whose parent filed the written complaint against the applicant, had stated that the applicant had touched her breast and asked her to touch his main point.
4. As has been noticed already, the father of one of the three girl students had lodged the complaint to the principal narrating the above 4 O.A. No. 217/2013 episodes. On receipt of the said complaint, the Principal constituted a Committee consisting of four senior Post Graduate Teachers including the Head Master to conduct a Fact finding enquiry. All the three girl students were called by the Committee members in the chamber of the Principal and were asked to explain the incident. The statements of these students were recorded. The Committee had summoned the applicant also and asked him to give his response to the allegations made against him. As has been mentioned earlier, the Committee found that there was prima facie material to show that the allegations made against the applicant were correct. The Committee noted that the applicant had stated nothing against the allegations, nor had he given anything in writing in his defence. Any how, the above report was forwarded by the Principal to the Deputy Commissioner, Mumbai Region. It is on record that the Deputy Commissioner, thereafter, constituted a Summary Enquiry Committee consisting of three members. The Committee had conducted a detailed enquiry by recording the statements of the parents, elder brother and sister of two of the victims and teachers apart from the statement of the Charged Officer himself. The statement of the Games teacher of the school was also recorded. A questionnaire was prepared by the Committee and the answers of the applicant were recorded.
5 O.A. No. 217/20135. We have referred to the above aspects only to highlight the fact that the Summary Enquiry Committee had conducted an elaborate enquiry in a meticulous manner and recorded the statements of all concerned including that of the parents and the victims. It is seen from the record that the parents understandably appeared to be shattered and they were in tears when they gave the statements before the Committee. (We have purposefully avoided mentioning the names of the parents and the small children who had suffered at the hands of the applicant).
6. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant before us is that a full fledged enquiry as contemplated under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was not held by the respondents before holding the applicant guilty. The other contention raised by the applicant is that he was purposefully victimised by the respondents and made a scapegoat since he belongs to a low caste. He has raised a further contention that he was not afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself. He has a further grievance that the Principal had constituted a five member Committee to hold the preliminary enquiry including two lady teachers. He contends that the number of members in the Committee should have been restricted to three. He alleges that the two lady teachers had an axe to grind against him and 6 O.A. No. 217/2013 therefore, they were prejudiced towards him. The applicant has also tried to lay emphasis on Article 81 (B) of the Education Code while contending for the position that the enquiry that was held by the respondents was not as contemplated under the above article.
7. We have carefully perused the entire materials placed before us by the applicant himself, which include the proceedings of the Enquiry Committee apart from the defence statement and the representations submitted by the applicant in response to the chargesheet etc. Having done so, we do not find any merit in any of the contentions raised by the applicant. As regards the alleged failure of the respondents in holding a full fledged departmental enquiry as contemplated under the CCS (CCA) Rules, it may at once be noticed that the said question is no more res-integra in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in Avinash Nagra v/s Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti 1997 SCC (L&S) 565 and Director Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and Ors v/s Babban Prasad Yadav and another (2004) 13 SCC 568.
8. In Avinash Nagra (supra), their lordships, after noticing the Special Summary Procedure introduced by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Sangathan in its relevant Education Code with a view to deal with the cases involving teachers in sexual harassment or exhibition of immoral behaviour towards any girl 7 O.A. No. 217/2013 student, held that in such cases procedure prescribed for holding enqquiry for imposing major penalty in accordance with the rules as applicable to the employees shall be dispensed with provided 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/her guardian or such other practical difficulties. In Babban Prasad Yadav (supra) also their lordships held that a full fledged enquiry as contemplated under the CCS (CCA) Rules would not be warranted if the principles of natural justice are complied with.
9. In this context, it may be pertinent to note that Navodaya Vidyalaya Sangathan had issued a notification on December 20, 1993 incorporating the following rule:
Whenever the Director is satisfied, after such summary enquiry as he deems proper and practicable in the circumstances of the case, that any member of Navodaya 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 months' pay and allowances depending upon whether the guilty employee is temporary or permanent in the services of the Samiti. In such cases, the procedure prescribed for holding enquiry for imposing major penalty in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as applicable to the employees of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, 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 8 O.A. No. 217/2013 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.
10. A perusal of the above rule/regulation will show that the Director is vested with ample power to dispense with an enquiry as provided under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, if he is of the opinion that it is not expedient to do so on account of the serious embarrassment that may be caused to the student or her guardians. In such cases, the Director shall record in writing, the reasons under which he takes such a view. In the case on hand, it can be seen that the Director, after due consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, had decided to dispense with the enquiry. In our view, the Director was amply justified in taking the decision not to hold a full fledged enquiry as contemplated under Rules 1965, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is seen from the Memorandum of Charge itself that reasons were recorded for dispensing with the enquiry under Rules, 1965.
11. It has been noticed already that a preliminary enquiry was conducted by a Committee consisting of five teachers immediately on receipt of the complaint from the parent of one of the victims.
9 O.A. No. 217/2013This Committee had recorded the statements of the three innocent victims. The Committee had also heard the applicant. The Committee found that the allegations against the applicant were prima facie true. It was, thereafter, that a three member Summary Enquiry Committee was constituted by the Deputy Commissioner of the region. This Committee, infact, held a detailed enquiry as is evident from the materials produced by the applicant himself before us. It could be seen from the above proceeding that applicant had been afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard. He had raised all conceivable contentions before the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority in his defence. The main grievance of the applicant is that an enquiry as contemplated under CCS (CCA) Rules has not been held in the matter, which according to him would have enabled him to put across his defence more effectively by cross examining the witnesses. We are unable to agree.
12. In our view it would have been cruel on the victims and their parents to allow the applicant or his defence assistant to cross examine them. We have already noticed that one of the parents was almost in tears when she appeared before the Enquiry Committee. The mental agony and trauma that the parents and their close relatives suffered is quite understandable. Therefore, in our view the action of 10 O.A. No. 217/2013 the respondents in dispensing with an enquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules is eminently justified.
13. We have carefully gone through the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. These two authorities have meticulously examined and considered all the relevant aspects of the issue in their proper perspective. Though the applicant has alleged that he was victimised, there is nothing on record to substantiate the above contentions. It cannot be assumed that the three innocent children would have named the applicant with any ulterior motive. A narration of the series of incidents perpetrated by the applicant will, in our view, justify the action taken by the respondents.
14. Thus, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and having heard learned counsel for the applicant at length, we do not find any reason to entertain this Original Application. It is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
(R.C. Joshi) (Justice A.K Basheer) Member (A) Member (J) sc.