Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Kuldhir vs Union Of India on 10 October, 2023
(Reserved)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench Allahabad
****
Original Application No.1521/2009
This the 10th Day of October, 2023.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Shrivastava, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
Kuldhir S/o Khaderu Ram, R/o Village - Khemapur, Post - Gorai,
Varanasi.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri S.K. Om
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource
& Development, Department of Education, Sastri Bhawan, New
Delhi.
2. Vice, Chairman, Kedriya Vidyalaya Sangathn 18, Institutional
Area Saheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.
3. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 18, Institutional
Area, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.
4. Asst. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, Bhopal
Division, Bhopal.
5. Ranjana Verma, Physical Education Teacher, Kendirya
Vidyalaya, Vidisha (M.P.).
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri D.P. Singh
ORDER
Order delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Shrivastava, Member (J) This OA has been filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 on 07.12.2009 for the following reliefs contended in Para-8 of the OA:-
Page No.2
"(i) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 24.10.2008 & 30.01.2009 passed by respondents (Annexure-1 and 2 to compilation No.I).
(ii) to issue a further writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, to reinstate the applicant as TGT and grant him the entire arrears of salary, seniority and other consequential benefits as if the order dated 24.10.2008 and 30.01.2009 has not been passed.
(iii) to pass any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(iv) to award the cost of the present OA in favour of the applicant."
By order dated 20.10.2008 (Annexure A-1), the services of the applicant have been terminated and by order dated 30.01.2009 (Annexure A-2), the Appeal preferred by the applicant has been dismissed by the respondents.
2. The facts of the case, as per the OA, are as under:-
A. The applicant was appointed as a Trainee Graduate Teacher (TGT) on 27.06.1994 in the Kendriya Vidyalaya. After some transfer, he was posted at Kendiriya Vidyalaya, Vidisa w.e.f.
05.09.2005.
B. On 10.01.2007, a student of Class-IX, Km. Noopur Verma submitted a complaint against the applicant for his immoral behaviour toward her on 06.01.2007.
C. The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya Vidisa, constituted a Preliminary Inquiry Committee on 11.01.2007, consisting of the following members:-
Page No.3
(i) Ms. Ranjana Verma, Physical Education Teacher.
(ii) V.N. Bhatt, T.G.T. Sanskrit
(iii) V.R.S. Chaturvedi, T.G.T. English
(iv) R.K. Chaurasia, P.R.T.
(v) Mrs. Swati Saxena, P.R.T.
D. The Preliminary Enquiry Committee conducted the inquiry and submitted its report on 12.01.2007, in which it was stated that the facts mentioned in the complaint are found true and established.
E. The said Inquiry Report was sent to Assistant Commissioner, Bhopal, vide letter dated 13.01.2007 and the said Officer vide his letter dated 16.01.2007 suspended the applicant. F. Thereafter, the matter was placed before a Summary Inquiry Committee constituted by Assistant Commissioner, Bhopal, KVS, Region vide order dated 23.01.2007 consisting of - (i) Ms. Nirmala Mohanal, Education Officer, KVS, Regional Office, Bhopal, (ii) Ms. B. Ekka, Principal, KVS, AFS, Amla, (iii) Ms. Ranjana Verma, PET, KV, Vidisa.
G. The Summary Inquiry Committee conducted the inquiry and submitted its report to the Assistant Commissioner, Bhopal with the positive findings.
Page No.4H. The suspension of the applicant was revoked vide order dated 20.07.2007.
I. A memorandum dated 14.12.2007 along with relevant documents was issued to the applicant for showing the cause . The applicant submitted a representation in which it was stated that the documents mentioned at Sl-C (statement recorded in Summary Inquiry) and Sl-D (Summary Inquiry Report) are not attached. Thereafter, the aforesaid documents were provided to the applicant vide memorandum dated 08.02.2008 (Annexure A-6).
J. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a detailed representation and after taking into consideration the Inquiry Report and representation of the applicant, the impugned order Annexurer A-1 was issued. The Appeal also preferred by the applicant and the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.01.2009 (Annexure A-2).
3. It is submitted by the applicant that respondent No.5 Smt. Ranjana Verma, who was working as Physical Education Teacher was not happy with the applicant. She influenced upon several teachers including the Principal. She was annoyed with the applicant for various reasons mentioned in the Original Application and upon the instigation of the aforesaid Ranjana Verma, the complainant Noopur Verma filed a false complaint against the applicant and upon the Page No.5 instigation of the aforesaid Ranjana Verma, other Girls Students also filed the complaint against the applicant and deposed against the applicant during the inquiry.
4. It is also submitted that a proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the applicant. The relevant documents were not provided to the applicant. The detailed inquiry has not been conducted, therefore both orders are liable to be set aside.
5. The respondents opposed the OA by filing counter affidavit. It is submitted by the respondents that all the documents were provided to the applicant and a detailed inquiry was conducted, proper opportunity for showing the cause was also provided to the applicant. Since it was a case of immoral behaviour of a teacher towards a girl student, it was not expedient to hold the regular inquiry as per CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 as it would caused serious embarrassment to the girls' student and their guardian/parents. Being girl students of tender age, their safety and security had to be protected by preventing her exposure to the tardy process of cross-examination, etc. during the inquiry, for this reason, the holding of regular inquiry was dispresed with. The disciplinary authority as well as Appellate Authority both considered the matter seriously and examined all relevant documents including the statement record in the inquiry, the dismissal order has been passed. There is no any ground is found to set aside both the aforesaid orders.
Page No.6
6. The matter is related to the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. The respondents also said that the Disciplinary Authority after having fully satisfied, in the exercise of powers conferred upon him under Article 81(b) of the Education Code, terminated the services of the applicant vide order dated 24.10.2008 (Annexure A-1).
7. Counsel for the respondents also drawn attention towards the provision of Rule 81 (b) of Education Code. The Rule says: -
81 (B) 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 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 practicable to hold such enquiry and he shall keep the Chairman of the Sangathan informed of the circumstances leading to such termination of services. Note:
wherever and as far as possible, a summary inquiry in the complaint of immoral behaviour by a teacher towards the students of 14 Kendriya Vidyalaya may be got investigated by the Complaints Redressal Committee constituted in the Regional office."
8. In the case of Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan, 1997 (6) SCC 241 the three Judges bench of Supreme Court issued various directions including formation of "Complaint Committee" in respect of sexual harassment of women at work place. In that case a definition of sexual harassment was suggested: -
Page No.7
"For this purpose, sexual harassment includes such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether directly or by implication as:
(a) physical contact and advances;
(b) a demand or request for sexual favours;
(c) sexually-coloured remarks;
(d) showing pornography;
(e) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature.
Where any of these acts is committed in circumstances whereunder the victim of such conduct has a reasonable apprehension that in relation to the victim's employment or work whether she is drawing salary, or honorarium or voluntary, whether in government, public or private enterprise such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem. It is discriminatory for instance when the woman has reasonable grounds to believe that her objection would disadvantage here in connection with her employment or work including recruiting or promotion or when it creates a hostile work environment. Adverse 15 consequences might be visited if the victim does not consent to the conduct in question or raises any objection thereto."
9. In para-24 of Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra (Civil Appeal No. 226-227 of 1999 Decided on 20.01.1999, the Supreme Court considered the aforesaid definition and said: -
"24. An analysis of the above definition, shows that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination projected through unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favours and other verbal or physical conduct with sexual overtones, whether directly or by implication, particularly when submission to or rejection of such a conduct by the female employee was capable of being used for effecting the employment of the female employee and unreasonably interfering with her work performance and had the effect of creating an intimidating or hostile working environment for her."
10. The three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court said in Medha Kotwal Lele v. U.O.I., 2013 (1) SCC 311, that the report of committee shall be deemed to be an inquiry report under CCS Rules: -
"Complaints Committee as envisaged by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Vishaka's Case, 1997 (6) SCC 241 at 253, will be deemed to be an inquiry authority for the purposes of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called CCS Rules) and the report of the Page No.8 Complaints Committee shall be deemed to be an inquiry report under the CCS Rules. Thereafter the disciplinary authority will act on the report in accordance with the rules."
11. In the case of Apparel Export Promotion (supra), a superior officer tried to sit close and touch the female employee and did not stop despite her reprimand. After departmental enquiry, the officer was removed from service for his unbecoming behaviour. Removal order was challenged and the High Court upset the finding on the ground that officer only tried to molest and did not actually molest the female employee. The Supreme Court held that the order of High Court is not valid because High Court should not have substituted its own discretion for that of Disciplinary Authority in the matter of facts and quantum of punishment. The Court also said that in case of finding of facts in departmental enquiry, the 16 Disciplinary Authority is the sole Judge of facts and Appellate Authority can upset the finding, but not the High Court unless the findings of Disciplinary Authority are perverse and against the Law. The High Court does not sit as Appellate Authority over the finding of Disciplinary Authority and impose some other punishment. The adequacy or in adequacy of evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. In para-15 of the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court observed: -
15. The high court appears to have over-looked the settled position that in departmental proceedings, the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and in case an appeal is presented to the appellate authority, the appellate authority has also the power/and jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact finding authorities. once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded, the high court in writ jurisdiction may not normally interfere Page No.9 with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. the adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the high court. since, the high court does not sit as an appellate authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review, the high court cannot normally speaking substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities. even insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or the departmental appellate authority, is either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the high court, it should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other punishment or penalty. both the learned single judge and the division bench of the high court, it appears, ignored the wellsettled principle that even though judicial review of administrative action must remain flexible and its dimension not closed, yet the court in exercise of the power of judicial review is not concerned with the correctness of the findings of fact on the basis of which the orders are made so long as those findings are reasonably supported by evidence and have been arrived at through proceedings which cannot be faulted with for procedural illegalities or irregularities which vitiate the process by which the decision was arrived at. Judicial Review, it must be remembered, is directed not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision-making process.
12. In para-17 to 20 of the aforesaid Apparel Export case (supra), the Court also mentioned the other relevant case upon the sexual harassment cases: -
17. It is useful to note the following observations of this Court in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur, (1972) 4 SCC 618:
"Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the high court exercising its jurisdiction under article 226 to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court.
18. After a detailed review of the law on the subject, this court while dealing with the jurisdiction of the high court or tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters and punishment in Union of India v. Parma Nanda, (1989) 2 SCC 177, opined:Page No.10
"We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of Legislature or Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter of exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority.
19. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995 ) 6 SCC 749, this court opined :
"The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a Disciplinary Enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal.
Further it was held:
A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.
20. Again in Government of Tamil Nadu and another v. A. Rajapandian, 1995(1) SCC 216, this court opined:Page No.11
"It has been authoritatively settled by string of authorities of this court that the Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on the findings of the inquiring authority in disciplinary proceedings. Where there is some relevant material which the disciplinary authority has accepted and which material reasonably supports the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority, it is not the function of the Administrative Tribunal to review the same and reach different finding than that of the disciplinary authority. The Administrative Tribunal, in this case, has found no fault with the proceedings held by the inquiring authority. It has quashed the dismissal order by re-appreciating the evidence and reaching a finding different than that of the inquiring authority."
13. Thereafter, in para-21, the Court said: -
"21. In the established facts and circumstances of this case, we have no hesitation to hold, at the outset, that both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court fell into patent error in interfering with findings of fact recorded by the departmental authorities and interfering with the quantum of punishment, as if the High Court was sitting in appellate jurisdiction. From the judgments of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, it is quite obvious that the findings with regard to an "unbecoming act" committed by the respondent, as found by the Departmental Authorities, were not found fault with even on re-appreciation of evidence. The High Court did not find 19 that the occurrence as alleged by the complainant had not taken place. Neither the learned single judge nor the Division Bench found that findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer or the Departmental Appellate Authority were either arbitrary or even perverse. As a matter of fact, the High Court found no fault whatsoever with the conduct of enquiry. The direction of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the respondent was not entitled to back wages and was to be posted outside the city for at least two years, which was upheld by the Division Bench, itself demonstrates that the High Court believed the complainants case fully for otherwise neither the withholding of back wages nor a direction to post the respondent outside the city for at least two years was necessary. The High Court in our opinion fell in error in interfering with the punishment, which could be lawfully imposed by the departmental authorities on the respondent for his proven misconduct. To hold that since the respondent had not "actually molested" Miss X and that he had only tried to molest her and had not managed to make physical contact with her, the punishment of removal from service was not justified was erroneous. The High Court should not have substituted its own discretion for that of the Page No.12 authority. What punishment was required to be imposed, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was a matter which fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority and did not warrant any interference by the High Court. The entire approach of the High Court has been faulty. The impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained on this ground alone. But there is another aspect of the case which is fundamental and goes to the root of the case and concerns the approach of the Court while dealing with cases of sexual harassment at the place of work of female employees."
Again in para-27, the Court said: -
" . . . .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 get swayed by insignificant discrepancies or narrow technicalities or dictionary meaning of the expression "molestation". They must examine the entire material to determine the genuineness of the complaint. The statement of the victim must be appreciated in the background of the entire case. Where the evidence of the victim inspires confidence, as is the position in the instant case, the courts are obliged to rely on it. Such cases are required to be dealt with great sensitivity. Sympathy in such cases in favour of the superior officer is wholly misplaced and mercy has no relevance. . . . ."
14. Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Dr. Virendra Singh vs. B.H.U., Varanasi etc. (Writ A 35877 of 2014 decided on 19.02.20215, the reliance has been placed upon Apparel Export case (supra) and held: -
"What has been emphasised by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions is that rules of 'natural justice' cannot remain the same under all conditions and that girls, in cases of sexual harassment, may not give evidence if a regular enquiry is held. Under since circumstance, the Committee of teachers that is constituted can record statements and no opportunity of cross-examination is required to be given nor a copy of the enquiry report is required to be supplied. The dispensation of a regular enquiry, therefore, under such circumstance does not result in violation of the principles of natural justice.
It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that a detailed disciplinary enquiry was required to be conducted. The petitioner was aware of the allegation that had been made Page No.13 against him as is clear from the reply that he had submitted and had been given an ample opportunity to state his defence when he appeared before the Committee. The petitioner gave his statement before the Committee which constituted of three senior teachers of the complaint had narrated the incident soon after it happened."
15. 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 in the complaint. The competent authority directed the 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 Page No.14 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 22 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 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.Page No.15
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."
16. In the case of Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya (supra), the departmental inquiry not undertaken. The teachers of the girls student working on temporary basis committing the misconduct towards the girls student. For misconduct, involving moral turpitude, after dispensing with the inquiry, punishment of dismissal was imposed. The Supreme Court said that the summary procedure necessitated only to record reason for 23 not holding the inquiry, inquiry not a panacea and the Supreme Court upheld the termination and said that no violation has been caused of natural justice.
17. 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 dispension 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.Page No.16
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 procedure prescribed under Article 81 (B) of Education Code for KV."
18. In the above mentioned case, the Allahabad High Court also relied upon the case of Avinash Nagra (supra). 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 24 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.
19. In the case of Union of India and others V. Sujeet Shubhkalbadiya W.P. (C) No. 749/2004, decided by the Division Bench of Guwahati High Court on 10.11.2006, the termination of employee who was found guilty of immoral behaviour towards the female student, was found justified. The Court said that the inquiry involving minor girl student in the sexual exploitation, therefore, the procedure Page No.17 of regular inquiry dispensed with, was justified. The Court said that no illegality committed by the competent authority. The Court also said that the same standard of criminal trial requiring proof of allegation beyond all reasonable doubt cannot be adopted in the inquiry conducted into the case of sexual harassment of women.
20. In the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. Principal Kendriya Vidyalaya, N.T.P.C., Shaktinagar, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court found that the dispensing of the inquiry was proper. It is mentioned that the petitioner teacher was found guilty of moral turpitude involving exhibition of sexual behaviour towards the girls student of the School. The Commissioner clearly recorded in writing that he was satisfied that the regular inquiry should be dispensed with because that would not be fair to the student as it was caused serious embarrassment to the girls' student and atmosphere. The Court also found that the reason also contained in the order of termination.
21. 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 25 was passed under Article 81 (2) and the Court 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 Page No.18 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.
22. It appears from the Summary Inquiry Report (Page 64-70) that the Inquiry Committee examined the complaint of Noopur Verma along with her father, Arun Verma, and mother Jyoti Verma. The Committee also examined Km. Devanshi Sharma of Class-IX, her mother Smt. Keerit Verma, Ms. Rajshree Soni, Class-X, Shubham Soni, Class-VII, R.K. Chaurasia, Sr. Teacher, and the Committee also took the information and verification from girls of Class-IX, girls of Class-VII & VIII and the girls of Class-X. Upon the basis of examination, the Committee submitted the following report:-
"Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Bhopal Region Conduct of Summary enquiry into the complaint of Girl student of K.V. Vidisha against Shri Kuldhir, TGT (Hindi) KV Vidisha.
As per Office Order No.F.28-2/2007/KVS(BPL) 599 dated
23.01.2007, it was ordered to conduct a summary inquiry into the compliant of the girl students of K V Vidisha against Shri Kuldhir, TGT (Hindi) for his Page No.19 immoral behaviour. As ordered, the Committee comprising of three members viz. Mrs. Nirmala Mohanan, Education Officer, Mrs. B. Ekka, Principal, KV AFS Amla and Mrs. Ranjana Verma, PET, KV Vidisha met K V Vidisha on 1.2.2007 to conduct the summary inquiry. The statement of Kum. Nupur Verma is as follows:-
(i) On Saturday 6th of January 2007, in the meeting of four houses during CCA period (i.e. 8th and 9th period) Mr. Kuldhir TGT (Hindi0 who is also the House Master of Tagore House called Km.
Nupur Verma out of the meeting and started speaking indecent tones to he, enticing her to come to him, whether she liked him or not and so on. Two other girl students of the same class viz. Rajnandni Gupta and Sakshi Srivastava overheard the conversation of Mr. Kuldhir TGT (Hindi) with Ms. Nupur Verma. Theconversation in verbatim is enclosed in as (Index-1).
(ii) Next we spoke to the parents are Kumari Nupur Verma. Shri Arun Verma Advocate S/o Siri Niranjan Verma ( father) Smt. Jyoti Verma, ( mother). Both of them were very anxious and distraught by the behaviour of the teacher towards their daughter. They repeated the same statement as Miss Nupur Verma had made. They even said that the teacher had cautioned Nupur not to disclose the matter to anyone otherwise not only the teacher but also Nupur Verma would get a bad name. (Index-II).
(iii) We spoke to Kum. Devanshi Sharma of Class-IX of the same class of Kum Nupur Verma. Miss Devanshi Sharma is a bold girl and she said that on the transfer of the teacher to KV Vidisha, they found the teacher behaving in a very peculiar way. While teaching he would relate poems and prose with words having vulgar meanings and under tones. He comes very close to the girls almost leaning on them and catching their hands while correcting their books. Once she complained about his behaviour to Mrs. RanjanaVerma PET and on coming to know of it Mr. Kuldhir had become very angry and threatened the class that the marks of the students were in his hands and he would fail all those who complained about him. After the incident of Ms. Nupur Verma was known and the Principal had conducted a Preliminary hearing in the Vidyalaya. Mr. Kuldhir fearing some problem had approached Ms. Devanshi Verma at her house and requested her to support him and not ot go against him, otherwise he would lose his job and become a beggar (Index-III).
(iv) We spoke to Mrs. Keerti Verma mother of Miss Devanshi Verma who is a teacher in teacher in the local MLB Higher Secondary School. The mother stated that he daughter was being harassed by the Hindi teacher, Mr. Kuldhir, for the past one year and her daughter was very upset about it and was reluctant to study in the Page No.20 school. The mother was also very annoyed with the earache's vulgar way of teaching the students (Index-IV).
(v) We spoke to all the girls of Class-IX and they agreed totally with the complaint of Kum. Nupur Verma. They had all seen Mr. Kuldhir calling Miss Nupur Verma out of the meeting and speaking to her alone under a tree and later they found Kum. Nupur Verma crying and distraught. The Vidyalaya discipline committee had conducted a preliminary enquiry on 11.1.2007 and the statement had been collected from the girls students. The committee found that all the girls were unanimous in their statements. We did not collect found that all the girls were unanimous in their statements. We did not collect fresh statements again. They only stated that they stand by the statement given on 11.1.2007 and there was nothing more to be added. All the 17 statements have been bunched together in (Index-V).
(vi) On summary enquiry of the Principal Smt. B. Madhumathi Damodaran, it was revealed that she was aware of this teacher's indecent behaviour towards students since last year. She received a complaint from one of the students, who was studying in class -IX then, in the year 2005, stating that hte teacher was proposing in an indecent way to the student. Miss Rajshree Soni. The student was very much disturbed by the attitude of her teacher and it was affecting her studies. She was not able to concentrate on her studies. The Principal called Mr. Kuldhir and warned him about his behaviour and he was asked to tender his apology in writing. From the apologetic statement of Mr. Kuldhir it is noted that he is aware of his notorious tactics but at the same time, he is very flippant about it. The complaint letter and the apology letter is placed as (Index-VI).
(vii) Next we spoke to Miss Rajshree Soni of Class-X. She narrated the incident which occurred while she was studying in Class-IX. She said that Mr. Kuldhir used to call her brother Shubham Soni studying in Class-VII and tell him that he wanted to marry his sister Rajshree. When she refused his advances and stopped speaking to him he became very upset with her. After the complaint, he became very rude to her and tried to humiliate her in the class before all the other students. He even said to her "that you cannot get a better lover than me" (Index-VII).
(viii) Next we spoke to the brother of Rajshree Soni, Shubham Soni of Class VII-A. He narrated that Mr. Kuldhir was his class teacher in VI-B and VII B also. He used to call Shubham and ask about his sister Rajshree and use vulgar words. He used to tell Shubham that he wanted to marry his sister. This kind of behavioud on the partof Page No.21 the teacher upset Shubham very much that he decided to change his section. Now he is in VII-A. What the committee observed was that both the children Rajshree and Shubham Soni never revealed the teacher's behaviour to anyone. In fact Shubham never told his sister even about the fact that he was being harassed on account of her and she never came to know of it. Both of them have tried to handle the situation in their own way without even taking the parents into their confidence.
(ix) We spoke to the girl students of Class X. They has nothing to report about the behaviour of their Hindi Teacher Mr. Kuldhir, but they did find his behaviour of pairing girls with one boy, very odd, and they also get bugged by his obnoxious references to sex related matters while teaching prose or poerty. But he did not behave oddly with those girls and they were also not awre of his advances towards their classmate Ms. Rajshree Soni because she never confided in them. But the students did mention that "Sir always teases Rajshree while teaching".
We also asked a few girl students of Class VIII & VII. These girls did not have any specific matter to report except that Sir makes "pairs" of boys and girls and also catches the hands of the girls.
(x) We enquired one or two lady teachers regarding the behaviour of Mr. Kuldhir with the staff memes. They did not have anything adverse to report against Mr. Kuldhir. They said his behaviour with the staff members was very normal and he spoke to them only if it was necessary.
(xi) We enquired Shri R.K. Chaurasia a senior teacher of the Vidyalaya about Mr. Kuldhir. He said that he observed Mr. Kuldhir was always surrounded by girls whenever he passed by his class. Later he became aware of the complaint submitted by the student Rajshree Soni. The Principal had called him as well as Shri Bhatt TGT (Sanskrit) and counselled Mr. Kuldhir in their presence. But even after this incidence, Mr. Chaurasia used to get complaints from parents regarding Mr. Kuldhir's misbehaviour, particularly with girl students. Mr. Chaurasia advised the parents to give a complaint in writing to the Principal so that some action could be initiated against Mr. Kuldhir, but parents were hesitant to give a written complaint fearing harassment to their wards by the teacher. These parents did not dare to complain to the Principal. An advocacy programme for adolescent Education was held for the parents in the first week of January 2007 in the Vidyalaya. After the programme some of the parents complained to Mr. Chaurasia about the immoral behavior of Mr. Kuldhir with their wards. He advised the parents to meet the Principal and appraise her of the problem, but the parents left without doing so. Two days later the Page No.22 incident in Class-IX took place and then all the girl students complained about the behaviour of Mr. Kuldhir very openly. (Index-VIII).
(xii) The accused teacher Shri Kuldhir, TGT (Hindi), KV Vidisha was enquired by the members of the Committee on 20.02.2007 at the KVS Regional Office, Bhopal. The members appraised him of the complaint of the girls, which he vehemently opposed, stating that these statements made by girls are not true.
To the question, if he taught Class-X, he replied in positive and also added that his result was always very good.
To the query whether he made pairs of boys and girls while teaching in class, his reply was that in teaching and understanding literate it was essential to make pairs of boys and girls. He said he had n o ill intention when he paired the girls and boys, but the girls have misunderstood his intention.
To the question that why he held the hands of the girls, while correcting their note books, he replied that he did not catch their hands with any intention, but to tell them to correct their mistakes and to point out their mistakes.
To all the questions related to Rajshree Soni of Class-X and her brother, he denied all the charges, saying that he never sasid anything to her or her brother. He even denied that he called Kum. Nupur ot of the CCA meeting on 6th January, 2007 and spoke to her. He said he did not go to any of the girls houses after the conduction of Preliminary hearing, but went to onl those houses which he used to visit even earlier. Finally, he added that it was a conspiracy hatched by some people and they got the girls to write about him. When asked if he could name the conspirators he said he was not aware who they are.
The Committee felt his replies weer not convincing and that he was guilty. He did not feel confident while giving his replied (Index-IX).
After conducting a detailed enquiry from the students and their parents, the teachers and Principal and also enquiring the accused the committee summarily concludes:
1. That the behaviour of Mr. Kudlhir TGT (Hindi) towards the students was unbecoming of a teacher.Page No.23
2. He used to teach the lesson in Hindi with an undertone of amorous pleasure, which the students may or may not have understood, which bears no particular reference to the lessons being taught in the clas.
3. His constant reference to sexual matters to adolescent boys and girls is also repugnant, though it bears no reference to the lesson.
4. The habit of pairing of boys and girls in very class denotes abnormal behaviour.
5. His advances towards girl students with particular reference to Miss Rajshree Soni of Class-X, Miss Nupur Verma and Miss Devanshi Sharma shows malafide intention towards these innocent girls, trying to lure them to satisfy his carnal desire exposes his immoral behaviour.
6. Inspite of being warned by the Principal, he continued with indecent and immoral behaviour towards girl students shows that he is unable to control his desires especially with young innocent girl students.
7. Physically touching girls and holding their hands is unwarranted.
8. Therefore the committee is convinced that Mr. Kuldhir, TGT (Hindi) is guilty of the charge of immoral behavior with the girl students.
Retaining Mr. Kuldhir in the Vidyalayawould shatter the confidence of the students particularly the girl students and their parents and they would surely feel insecure and betrayed."
23. The statement of Noopur Verma was recorded on 01.02.2007. She said in her statement:-
"कुमारी नप ू रु वर्मा कक्षा 9th की हूं। Saturday को जब House Meeting चल रही थी तब उन्होंने मझ ु े अकेले में बल ु ाया और मझ ु से गंदी बातें करने लगे-
1. उन्होंने मझ ु से कहा कि नप ू रु मैं (कुलधीर सर) तम् ु हें कैसा लगता हूं।
2. उन्होंने कहा कि जब लड़की को Time Period आता है तब वह जवान हो जाती है और वह कुछ भी कर सकती है ।
3. उन्होंने कहा कि लखनऊ में भी मझ ु पर 10th क्लास की लड़कियां भी मरती थी। मेरे कमरे में आ जाती थी। तम् ु हारा क्या इरादा है ।Page No.24
4. उन्होंने कहा कि तम ु कहां रहती हो तो मैंने कहा कि मैं बहुत दरू रहती हूं तो सर ने कहा कि प्यार करने वाले तो कहीं भी मिल सकते हैं और उन्होंने मझ ु े अपने घर में कमरे में बल ु ाने की भी बात की।
5. उन्होंने मझ ु पर अपनी कसम चढ़ा दी और कहा कि तम ु यह सब बातें किसी को नहीं बताओगी वरना मेरी भी बदनामी होगी और तम् ु हारी भी।
6. और क्लास में जब लड़कियां Copy Check कराती है तब सर लड़कियों का और मेरा हाथ पकड़ लेते हैं कक्षा में गंदी बातें करते हैं कहते हैं कि प्यार करने वालों की उम्र नहीं दे खी जाती और सेक्स से जड़ ु ी बातें भी उन्होंने कई बार कक्षा में कहने की कोशिश की।"
24. Gunjan Bajpai, a student of Clas-IX said in her statement that the applicant was habitual for abnormal talking in Class and the Nupur told her about the conduct of the applicant. Disha Saxena, a student of Class IX, said that she agreed with the complainant. She also said that the applicant "लड़कियो को हाथ पकड़ लेते है और झक ु ा दे तें है , और फालतू बाते करते है ।" She again said that she saw that the applicant was talking with Nupur in an isolated place.
25. Another student, Sparsh Purohit, Class-IX also said that the applicant was unnecessarily talking in the class and caught hold hand of the girls and thereafter, he bent the girl student to the lower side. Kabilaka Sharma, a student of class IX, also said that the applicant is usually caught holding the hand of girls students. Monika Raghuvanshi, class IX also said that on one day, the applicant was caught holding her hand and he used to talk unnecessarily. Manu Page No.25 Barsaiyan, a student of Class-IX said in her statement that she agrees with the complaint. She again said that the applicant ""लड़कियो को हाथ पकड़ लेते है , गले लगा लेते है और जो लड़किया रूप रं ग में अच्छी नहीं है उनका अपमान करते है , एवं गालियाँ दे ते है "
26. Anushka Saxena, Clas IX also said that " उन्होनें पढाते वक्त कुछ खराब बाते की और कहने लगे कि अपनी अनष्ु का भी कोई Steel Body से कम नहीं है ,और सर क्लास में Boys and Girls की pair बनाते है फिर उन्हें चिढ़ाते है । क्लास में कभी-कभी लड़कियो के हाथ भी पकड़ लेते है , और कभी-कभी गले भी लगा लेते है "
27. Prachi Dubey, a student of Class IX also supported the fact that the applicant was in habit to caught holding the hand of girls student and she also said that the applicant " कुछ ऐसी बाते कहते है जो लड़को को लड़कियों से ताना कसने के लिए प्रेरित करते है ।" Another student, Sakshi Srivstava, said that "जब सर किसी भी लड़की से बात करते है , हमेशा वो हाथ पकड़ लेते है । जब नप ू रू से यह कहा गया तब हम वहाँ गये तो सर ने वहाँ से जाने के लिए बोला। हमने सर को हमेशा दे खा है कि कभी भी सर लड़कियो को गले लगा लेते है , ............. क्लास में जोड़ी बनाते है , ..........................., गालियाँ दे ते है , फालतू बोलते है । Raj Nandani Gupta, also said that " जब नप ू रू वर्मा के साथ घटना हुई तब मै वहाँ मौजद ू थी। श्री कुलधीर सर ने नप ू रू से कहा कि जब मै अहमदाबाद में था तब वहाँ पर भी मेरे से दो औरते शादी करने की बोल रही थी, और उन्होने नप ू रू से कहा कि तम् ु हारा महीना चालू हो गया होगा, तम ु एम.सी. से होने लगी होगी तो तम ु जवान हो गयी हो, और तस ु सब कुछ कर सकती हो। इसके अलावा भी वो कक्षा में बहुत गन्दी-गन्दी बाते करते है । उन्होने लड़कियो को हाथ भी पकड़ा है । Page No.26
28. The committee constituted and duly considered the aforesaid all statements and inquired from the other students. Thereafter, the committee submitted the report against the applicant. It is submitted by the applicant that the Inquiry Report and Statement were not provided to him. But, the aforesaid allegation is not correct. It appears from the report that a notice was issued to the applicant on 14.12.2007 (Annexure A-6). In the aforesaid notice, it was mentioned that the following documents were also attached with the notice:-
(i) Charges
(ii) Facts in support of Charges
(iii) Statement recorded in Summary Inquiry
(iv) Report of Summary Inquiry.
In the aforesaid notice, 15 days time was granted to the applicant with the stipulation that if he failed to file any representation then it would be presumed that he has nothing to say and the order would be passed against him ex parte under the provision of Article 81(b) of Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalaya.
29. The applicant submitted the reply to the notice (Annexure A-8). In the aforesaid reply, in Para-5 he mentioned that the document stated at Sl. Nos. 3 and 4 are not received. The aforesaid representation shows that as per the applicant, he did not receive "संक्षिप्त जाँच को दौरान अभिलिखित किये गये कथन" and "संक्षिप्त जाँच प्रतिवेदन". Page No.27
30. The letter Annexure A-8 dated 08.02.2008 clearly shows that the aforesaid two documents also provided to the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a detailed representation.
31. After taking into consideration the Inquiry Report and the detailed representation, the impugned order Annexure A-1 was passed on 24.10.2008 by which the services of the applicant were terminated. It will be useful to refer the aforesaid order in toto:-
"F.10-5/2007-KVS (Vig) Dated: 24.10.08 A complaint dated 10.01.2007 was lodged by Kum. Nupur Verma a female student of class IX of KV, Vidisha against Shri Kuldhir, TGT, (Hindi) for his immoral behaviour towards her, on 06.01.2007 during the CCA period. The other female students of class IX also submitted their written complaint on 10.01.2007.
2. The Principal, KV, Vidisha constituted a Preliminary Inquiry Committee on 11.1.2007 consisting of the following members:
(i) Mrs. Ranjana Verma, PET
(ii) Shri V.N. Bhatt, TGT (Sanskrit)
(iii) Shri V.R.S. Chaturvedi, TGR (Eng)
(iv) Shri R.K. Chaurasia, PRT
(v) Mrs. Swati Saxena, PRT
The said committee conducted the inquiry and submitted its report on 12.01.2007, confirming the facts mentioned in the complaints as true and established. The Chairman, VMC was informed of this development by the Principal on 12.01.2007. The preliminary inquiry report was sent to the Asstt. Commissioner Bhopal vide letter dated 13.01.2007.
3. On receipt of the preliminary inquiry report, Shri Kuldhir was placed under suspension and attached to KV No.1. Bhopal by the Assistant Commissioner Bhopal vide order dated 16.01.2007. The Assistant Commissioner apprised the Commissioner, KVS telephonically about the findings of the inquiry and accordingly, he was directed to proceed further for Summary Inquiry in accordance with the laid down procedure in such cases.
4. A Summary Inquiry Committee was constituted consisting of following memes to enquire into the complaint vide order dated 23.01.2007 by the Assistant Commissioner:-
(i) Mrs. Nirmala Mohnan, E.O. KVS, Ro, Bhopal
Page No.28
(ii) Mrs. B. Ekka, Prinicpal KV, AFS, Amla
(iii) Mrs. Ranjana Verma, PET, KV, Vidisha
5. The Summary Inquiry Committee conducted the inquiry and submitted its report to the Assistant Commissioner with the following findings:-
"(i) The behaviour of Shri Kuldhir, TGT towards the students was unbecoming of a teacher.
(ii) He used to teach lessons in Hindi with an undertone of amorous pleasure which bore no particular reference to the lessons being caught in the class and that the students may or may not have understood.
(iii) His consent reference to sexual matters to adolescent boys and girls is also repugnant though it bore no reference to the lesson.
(iv) The habit of pairing of boys and girls in every class denotes abnormal behaviour.
(v) His advances towards girl students with particular reference to Miss Rajshree Soni of class X, Miss Nupur Verma and Miss Devanshi Sharma show malafide intention towards these innocent girls, trying to lure them to satisfy his carnal desire and demonstrated his immoral behaviour.
(vi) In spite of being warned by the Principal, he continued with indecent and immoral behaviour towards girl students which shows that he is unable to control his desires, especially with young innocent girl students.
(vii) Physically touching girls and holding their hands is unwarranted.
(viii) The committee is convinced that Shri Kuldhir, TGT (Hindi) is guilty of the charge of immoral behaviour with the girl students. Retaining Shri Kuldhir in the Vidyalaya would shatter the confidence of the students particularly the girl students and their parents and they would surely feel insecure and betrayed."
6. Without prejudice to the departmental proceedings initiated against him, the suspension of Shri Kuldhir was revoked with posting at KV, Khandwa by the Assistant Commissioner, Bhopal vide order dated 20.07.2007.
Page No.29
7. On receipt of the inquiry reports from the Assistant Commissioner, a show cause notice along with the following documents was issued to Shri Kuldhir by the undersigned vide memorandum dated 14.12.2007:-
(a) The complaint.
(b) Facts in support of the charges.
(c) Statement recorded in the summary inquiry.
(d) Summary inquiry report.
Shri Kuldhir submitted his representation dated 11.1.2008 wherein he steed that he was not in receipt of the documents as mentioned under © and
(d). He was again provided with a copy of the above documents, as required by him vide memorandum dated 08.02.2008.
Shri Kuldhir submitted his representation dated 21.02.2008 in response to fore stand show cause notice with the following submissions:-
(i) He is M.A. B.Ed. and has been holding the permanent post of TGT (Hindi) from 27.06.1994. He has rendered sincere and devoted service for more than 13 years which was appreciated all throughout.
(ii) He joined KV Vidisha and established himself as a model teacher with his hard and sincere work.
(iii) Due to his sincerity and popularity, two local teachers - Mrs. Ranjana Verma and Shri R.K. Chaurasia were jealous of him and were conspiring to defame the applicant and planned this heinous story with the help of students and their guardians.
(iv) The entire allegations against the applicant are absolutely mala fie, beaeless and based upon fake documents got prepared under the influence of the above two local teachers.
(v) The complaints were got prepared buy one or two students, as is evident from the handwriting, under the pressure of above teachers who compelled the students to make such baseless allegations against the applicant.
(vi) In the absence of the applicant, a large number of students voluntarily request the Principal KV, Vidisha to call back the applicant which has approved hs sincerity and conduct.
(vii) The Inquiry committee has not issued any notice to the applicant fixing the date, time and place of inquiry. He was also not provide with any opportunity of hearing.Page No.30
(viii) The husband of Smt. Ranjana Verma, a member of the inquiry committee, is the District Education Officer and both are influential persons and the entire proceedings were conducted at the back of the applicant.
(ix) The applicant was n ot provided any opportunity to ask the complaint above the truth of the complaint. The entire evidence were collected and relied upon in his absence.
(x) Mrs. Ranjana Verma, PET and one of the members of the inquiry committee is junior to the applicant. The inquiry report, prepared under the pressure and influence containing false and baseless allegations is having no substance.
(xi) The applicant is totally innocent and has been victimized due to mala fide and ulterior motives of the two influential teachers.
(xii) The applicant ws never served with a copy of the complaint or enquiry report before the notice dated 08.02.2008 was issued. The entire proceedings were conducted in his absence which is the gross violation of natural justice and violative of ARticles 14, 15 and 311 of the Consitution of India.
(xiii) The applicant never committed any such misconduct and never submitted any apology to the Principal. The letter of the applicant dated 03.12.2005 was misread.
(xiv) The applicant belongs to weaker section and Scheduled Caste which is a major factor for not absorbing the applicant in the institution and to kick out from service with false and baseless allegations against him.
9. The submissions of the applicant have been examined in the light of the complaint, preliminary and summary inquiry reports, statements of Shri D.N. Sharma, the then TGT (Sc), the principal and female students and observed that the averments of the applicant are irrelevant. The allegation of his immoral behaviour towards female students was fully proved during both the preliminary as well as summary inquiry. The Principal of the Vidyalaya, in her statement, has categorically stated that on an earlier occasion also, Shri Kuldhir was duly advised counselled and strictly warned not to indulge in such behaviour and he had flet sorry and given his assurance in writing not to repeat such behaviour. She has also stated that no boy student has ever approached her to express an feeling for Shri Kuldhir. The inquiry committee had given him due opportunity under the provisions of Article 81(B) of the Education Code and had taken his statement on 20.02.2007.
Page No.31Since, it was a case of immoral behaviour of a teacher towards the girl students and it was not expedient to hold a regular enquiry as per the C.C.S. (C.C.&A) Rules, 1965, as it would cause serious embarrassment to the girl students and their guardians/parents. Being girl students of tender age, their safety and security had to be protected by preventing their exposure to the tardy process of cross-examination etc during the inquiry. As such, holding of a regular inquiry was dispensed with. Therefore, the submission of the applicant in the matter of issue of notices as in the case of a regular enquiry is not warranted.
10. The undersigned being the competent authority, after going through the records of this case is satisfied that Shri Kuldhir is prima facie guilty of moral turpitude as he has been found indulging in immoral behaviour towards female Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalaya are satisfied in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
It is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 02.05.2003 in SL. P © No.9808/2002 filed by the Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Ors. vs. Shri Babban Prasad Yadav has held that the following preconditions are required to be satisfied before the Charged Officer is terminated by the Competent Authority in exercise of such powers under the relevant rules:
(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.
11. The undersigned before exercising the power conferred upon him under the rules has strictly adhered to the requirements of Article 81 (B) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalaya has followed the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-mentioned case.
Now, therefore, I Ranglal Jamuda, Commissioner, KVS in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Article 81(B) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas hereby terminate the services of Shri Kuldhir, TGT (Hindi) Kendriya Vidyalaya, Khandwa with immediate effect. Shri Kuldhir be paid the pay and allowances as admissible under the Rules.
................"
Page No.32
32. It is also transpired from the record that the applicant preferred an Appeal against the aforesaid termination order. A copy of the Appeal has been placed at Page 111-121. The aforesaid Appeal dated 08.12.2008 was considered by the Appellate Authority and thereafter, the Appellate Authority passed the order on 30.01.2009 (Annexure A-2). The relevant portion of the aforesaid order mentioned at Page 28-31 (internal Page 326) is also relevant in which it is mentioned:-
".........................
Aggrieved by the above order of the Disciplinary Authority, Shri Kuldhir has preferred an appeal dated 08.12.2008 before the undersigned with the following submissions:-
1. On the alleged complaint dated 10.01.07 lodged by Kum. Nupur Verma, student of Class IX, neither an explanation was called from the applicant, nor he was provided with a copy of the complaint.
2. Mrs. Ranjana Verma, PET of KV, Vidisha & wife of D.E.O. Vidisha was on logger-heads with him. She used to send the students for practice during the class hours and the appellant disallowed the students to go from the class. On this issue, she had a row with the appellant, who had also been threatened by her. She had undue influence over girl students.
3. Mrs. Madhumati Damodaran, the Principal of KV, Vidisha was obliged by Mrs. Ranjana Verma by extending her the facilities of transport and other comforts. Hence, the Principal did not take any action against Mrs. Verma despite her misbehaviour and misdemeanor.
4. Mrs. Ranjana Verma had very close relations with the family of Kum Nupur Verma, the complainant. She always tried to sneak away from the class to be with Mrs. Ranjana Verma. The appellant had warned the student against this practice.
5. The complaint was the outcome of the conspiracy at the instance of Mrs. Ranjana Verma in connivance with the family of Kum. Nupur Verma.
6. As the class teacher of Class VII, the students paid the appellant very high respect. One ShriR.C. Chaurasia, PRT, did not like it.Page No.33
7. On 6.1.2007, the House meeting was held on the playground. There in the open, everyone could watch the association of House-Teacher with the students. There was not reason for the appellant to call Kum Nupur Verma from among other students and talk to her. If such a thing had happened, the boys who were present in the meeting would have noticed the same and given statement against the appellant. But no boys were examined or asked about the behaviour of the appellant in the class room in connection with the allegation made by Kum.
Nupur Verma.
8. For the preliminary enquiry, the Principal constituted a Committee consisting of members who were not in good terms with the appellant.
9. It was blatant falsehood on the part of the Inquiry Committee to conclude that the appellant was meeting the parents to seek for help and save him out of this allegation.
10. The appellant was never informed about constitution of the Summary Inquiry Committee to inquire into the allegation of the girl student against him.
11. There was complete breach of natural justice. The statement of the appellant was recorded before examining or cross-examining any witness of the department. Some of his answers were written at the instance of Mrs. Ranjana Verma.
12. Everything in the case was done at the back of the appellant and conclusions were arrived at without giving him an opportunity to bring out the truth from the witnesses by cross-examination.
13. When the appellant was suspended, the boy students apprised the Principal of his behaviour in the class from inwriting, but the Principal refused to accept their letters apart from scolding the boy students for speaking in his favour.
14. The Disciplinary Authority was totally misled in this case. The Inquiries held against the appellant were unfair as Mrs. Rajana Verma was involved in both the enquiries with an objective to prove the appellant guilty. Resultantly, he was made the victim of conspiracy hatched by Smt. Ranjana Verma in order to avenge against him.
Grounds:-
A. Every Rule of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 has been breached to the prejudice of the appellant.Page No.34
B. It is evident and perceivable that no enquiry worth the name was conducted. Whatever done was contrary to law in the name of preliminary enquiry and summary enquiry.
C. All departmental enquiries shold be conducted by persons who are impartial and independent. In the cas of he appellant, Mr.s Ranjana Verma, who kept grudge with him, was involved in the enquiries to influence the other members of the Inquiry Committee.
D. If the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 are breached and not followed, the inquiry has suffered irretrievable and irredeemable consequences. In the case of appellant, the enquiry is vitiated and hence to be scrapped.
E. If the appellant had done anything wrong with Kum.Nupur Verma in the class, the other students, particularly the boy students would have been eloquent to condemn him. But they had spoken unequivocally in favour of the appellant which was refused to be accepted by the Principal. The students, who had deposed against him had, later on, mentioned that they had spoken against the appellant under influence. This aspect was avoided to be considered before arriving at the conclusion.
F. The appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste. He has suffered the caste prejudice in KV, Vidisha and whenever reported the matter to the Principal, she brushed it aside saying that it was all his imagination. He is married and have two children, In this background, it was not possible for him to propose a girl of IX class to be his wife when such a thing is prohibited in the Conduct Rules.
G. The appellant had never held the hand of any girl or touched them. It might be sometimes while taking the books, her hand might have touched with his hand, but it was absolutely unintentional.
H. There ought to be a properly defined charge which is couched in an unequivocal language served on the person to be chargesheeted. It should be only after evaluating the reply of the accused, the Authority has to decide whether an enquiry is necessitated or not. But in the case of the appellant, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the final order after dispassionately evaluating all pros and cons on the basis of the material available on record.
I. No witness was examined in the presence of the appellant not he was given any opportunity to cross examine. No documents were supplied to the appellant for cross examination of witnesses. The documents in his favour could not be placed as he was not given an opportunity to produce defence evidence. His previous service records were also not taken' into account before passing the termination order. Hence it is Page No.35 absolutely unfair, unreasonable, inequitable and aribitrary with reference to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
J. No order of termination can be passed without a full dressed inquiry leading to an irresistible conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the charge. The finding must also be independent and impartial. Since independence of this country, the caste prejudice is still having its toll and persons like the appellant are being subjected to indignity and ignominy. Thus the entire enquiry requires to be quashed.
K. The family of the appellant consisted of his wiíe and two school going children. To run his family for no fault of him, cannot be allowed by a person who has a human heart capable of looking at every human sympathetically and empathetically.
L. The conclusions recorded in para 5 and the statement of the Principal in para 9 are not true. When the Principal, who had no feeling for the appellant, was also in the committee, where could the appellant go?
M. The Principal of kV, Vidisha had once called the appellant in her office and told him about a complaint received by her against him, but did not show him the complaint, She persuaded him to give his apology in writing. The Commissioner has reached at the conclusion without considering the prejudice of certain teachers with influence over the students that the life of a member Scheduled Caste who wants to come in the mainstream of the society would be totally sacrificed for no fault on the part of him. Even if the regular enquiry is to be dispensed with, a notice in this behalf is to be given to the accused.
N. Had all the records of this case been thoroughly examined by the Commissioner, he would not have reached at the conclusion of terminating the services of the appellant as he would have realized the conspiracy hatched against him.
O. The punishment given to the appellant is absolutely excessive and requires to be reconsidered in its entire scope.
The submissions of the appellant have been examined in the light of the complaint, inquiry reports and relevant records of the case and observed as following:-
1. The submission of the appellant is not correct. He was fully aware of the complaint against which he had submitted his explanation in writing to the Principal, KV,Vidisha on 12-1-2007.
2. The submission of the appellant is irrelevant. It was not a case of personal enmity of the appellant with his colleague Mrs. Ranjana Verma, but a case of immoral behaviour of a teacher towards the girl Page No.36 students which was fully established during both the preliminary and summary inquiry.
3. It is only a counter-allegation by the appellant. There was no such complaint against Mrs. Madhumati Damodaran, the Principal of KV, Vidisha accepting gratification from Mrs. Ranjana Verma. The misvehaviour on the part of Mrs.Ranjana Verma was also never reported.
4. The quality of a teacher to keep good relation with his/her students and guardians is appreciable. The complaint lodged by the girl student against the appellant has no place for the relation of Mrs.Ranjana Verma with the students.
5. It is only the after-thoughtof the appellant.
6. The personal relation of the appellant with his fellow workers had no relevance to the complaint lodged by the girl student against him for his immoral behaviour.
7. The statement of boy students has no relevance to the complaint of immoral behaviour of the appellant with the complainant. The girl student, in her written complaint, has specifically mentioned that the appellant misbeháved with her when she was alone. Moreover, the immoral behaviour on the part of the appellant was fully established during both the preliminary as well as summary inquiry.
8. The submission of the appellant has no base. He has admitted himself that Shri V.N.Bhatt, one of the member of preliminary inquiry committee was kind enough for him.
9. Before the Inquiry Committee, the appcllant had admitted to have gone to the house of one girl student and told them to save him out of this allegation.
10. The appellant was fully aware of the complaint and the departmental inquiries conducted against him as per the rules.
11. There was no breach of natural justice. The inquiries were conducted as per the rules. The allegation of misbehaviour towards girl students on the part of the appellant was fully proved.
12. It was a case of immoral behaviour of a teacher towards girl students.
The appellant was very much involved in both the preliminary as well as Summary inquiry and the Committee had taken his statement well in time.
Page No.37
13. None of the boy students had ever approached the Principal to speak in favour of the appellant.
14. The submission is totally irrelevant. Mrs. Ranjan a Verma, PET was the disciplinary incharge of the Vidyalaya. She was only one of the member of the inquiry committee. The complaint was lodged by that girl student who had fallen prey to the immoral behaviour of the appellant. The allegation was proved during both the preliminary and summary inquiry.
All the other points raised in the grounds of appeal have also been examined and observed that the averments of the appellant are totally irrelevant. Since it was a case of immoral behaviour of a teacher towards the girl students, it was not expedient to hold a regular enquiry as per the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 as it would cause serious embarrassment to the girl students and their guardians/parents. Being girl students of tender age, their safety and security had to be protected by preventing their exposure to the tardy process of cross examination etc during the inquiry. As such, holding of a regular inquiry is dispensed with.
Both the preliminary as well as summary inquiry were conducted as per the rules. The complaint against the appellant for his immoral behaviour towards girl students had nothing to do with his caste or religion. The allegation was fully proved during both the inquiries. The Disciplinary Authority had followed the preconditions as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 2-5-2003 in SLP(C) No.9808/2002 before exercising the powers conferred upon him under Article 81(B) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas.
I have gone through the representation and also the facts of the case. After due application of my mind, I am of the view that the orders of the Commissioner, KVS are in order and need no interference.
Accordingly, the appeal of Shri Kuldhir is disposed of.
................."
33. Therefore, it appears from the aforesaid order Annexure A-1 that all points raised by the applicant have been considered and the Appellate Authority also considered all the relevant points raised by the applicant in his Appeal dated 08.12.2008 and thereafter, the Appellate Authority also came to the conclusion that the termination order has rightly been passed against the applicant. Page No.38
34. The respondents argued that the conduct of the applicant was already disputed. On previous occasion, the warning was also issued to the applicant and the applicant submitted a written apology in this regard. The detailed letter/apology is also placed in the record, in which the applicant written in his own handwriting:-
" सेवा में , प्राचार्या केंद्रीय विद्यालय, विदिशा।
महोदया, सविनय निवेदन है कि इस समय जो भी जाने-अनजाने में मझ ु से त्रटि ु हुई है , वह आगे नहीं होगी। आगे से आपके दिए हुए निर्देश का मैं सावधानीपर्व ू क पालन करूंगा। किसी लड़की या उसके भाई से कभी कुछ नहीं पछ ू ू ं गा। कोई व्यर्थ की बात नहीं करूंगा।
दिनाँक-03.12.05 भवदीय
कुलधीर
केंद्रीय विद्यालय, विदिशा।"
At page 37, the applicant himself filed a letter endorsed to Sahayak Ayukt, Bhopal. In parfa-3 of the aforesaid letter the fact of the aforesaid apology is also mentioned. Therefore, it can be said that the applicant was habitual of the aforesaid objectionable conduct with the girls student.
35. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the complaint submitted by Noopur Verma was not shown to the applicant. But this fact is also not correct. In the aforesaid letter at Page 37-40, in Para-8 and 9, the applicant himself mentioned that the aforesaid letter was shown to him. In para 10 he mentioned that on 20.02.2007 he submitted the written statement before the committee. It is a different thing that he also mentioned that he could not submit his Page No.39 representation properly because of mental and physical illness. Committee also examined the applicant on 20.02.2007 in which opportunity was given to explain his version about the evidence found against him.
36. The another point raised by the applicant that Ms. Ranjana Verma was annoyed to him but this allegation is not supported by any cogent evidence or the documents. There was no any reason to have any animity with the applicant. Ms. Ranjana Verma is also a working Physical Education Teacher. Her husband was District Education Officer, but only upon the baseless allegation mentioned by the applicant it cannot be said that she was prejudiced with the applicant.
37. It is also submitted by the applicant that the constitution of the Preliminary Inquiry Committee was illegal and arbitrary because R.K. Chaurasia and Swati Saxena, both are junior to the applicant. The aforesaid argument cannot be accepted. The Committee was consist of five members, therefore it is not the requirement of any law that all five members should be senior to the applicant. The Committee is free to make decisions upon a majority basis. Any junior members may also included in the inquiry committee because the decision is not depend upon any one member of the committee. A collective decision should be taken. Hence, the aforesaid allegation is not found correct. Page No.40
38. The applicant was a Teacher. 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 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."
Page No.41
39. Therefore, it appears from the entire record that sufficient evidence was found against the applicant during the inquiry. His behaviour with the girls' student was not decent. He was habitual for vulgar talking with the girls' student and he was habitual or catch holding the hand of girls student and his conduct with the student was not proper. Sufficient opportunity as per law was provided to the applicant. Every point raised by the applicant was considered in the Appellate Order also.
40. Therefore, in view of this court the respondents rightly terminated he services of the applicant because the conduct of the applicant was not upto mark for the noble profession of teacher. His behaviour was immoral sexual behaviour towards girls students.
41. Hence, this OA having no any force, therefore the same is dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Sanjiv Kumar) (Justice B.K. Shrivastava)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil