Orissa High Court
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs Sri Binaya Kumar Das on 16 March, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.603 of 2026
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.
----
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
represented thorough it's Vice-
Chairman.
2. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan.
4. Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan.
5. Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1
(2nd Shift), Unit-IX, Bhubaneswar
.... Petitioners
-versus-
1. Sri Binaya Kumar Das
2. Registrar, Central Administrative
Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack .... Opposite Parties
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Petitioners - Mr.Hrusikesh Tripathy
Advocate
For Opp. Parties - Mr.J.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate
With Mr.D.N.Rath & A. Pal
Advocates for O.P.1 on caveat.
---
Page 1 of 9
CORAM
MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 16.03.2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER KRISHNA S DIXIT, J.
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 and its officials are knocking at the doors of the Writ Court for laying a challenge to the order dated 14.11.2025 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack having favoured O.A. No.260/00356 of 2022, has quashed disciplinary action levied on the OP No.1 and the order affirming it on Appeal coupled with a direction to treat him as continuing in service till attaining the age of superannuation and to grant terminal benefits, except back wages, within 180 days.
2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2.1. OP No.1, a Post Graduate Teacher (Chemistry) had allegedly perpetrated acts of sexual abuse against a Girl Student in the School. Parents had lodged FIR, pursuant to which he was arrested, and later enlarged on bail vide order dated 11.02.2016.
Kharvel Nagar PS Case No.24/2016 that was registered on 14.01.2014, came to be converted into T.R. No.5/2016 by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court Page 2 of 9 (POCSO), Bhubaneswar pursuant to the Charge-Sheet filed after police investigation.
2.2. Since police custody of OP No.1 was beyond 48 hours, he suffered deemed suspension w.e.f 14.01.2016 vide formal order dated 18.01.2016. After being released, his suspension was revoked and he was posted to another K.V. at Sirkakulam. A Preliminary Enquiry done with the participation of OP No.1 resulted into an adverse report, on which a Summary Inquiry was constituted. This was put in challenge by the OP No.1 in O.A. No.41/2017. The Tribunal, vide order dated 20.01.2017, directed deferring of the Inquiry till after his representation was considered. The Commissioner, KVS, vide order dated 23.02.2017, rejected the representation and later paved way for the Summary Inquiry vide order dated 08.03.2017.
2.3. The above order of the Commissioner, KVS was put in challenge by the OP No.1 in OA No.137/2017, which was negatived reserving liberty to him to await outcome of the Disciplinary Proceeding vide order dated 06.02.2019. The interim interdiction order was also vacated. In the full-fledged Disciplinary Inquiry, he was found guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority, in its order dated 28.06.2021, made under Article 81(B) of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Education Code, terminated his services directing payment of wages in lieu of compliance with notice period. This Page 3 of 9 was done after recording dissatisfaction, where it said: '...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'.
2.4. In the meanwhile, learned Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Bhubaneswar, after holding trial entered a judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.09.2021 in T.R. No.5/2016. OP No.1 had made this order one as of the grounds in the Departmental Appeal stating that it was a case of honourable acquittal in the light of observations of Apex Court in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2024) 1 SCC 175. He had also contended that the entire Inquiry itself was incompetent and vitiated for not following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women in Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressed) Act, 2013. In the meanwhile, OP No.1 attained the age of superannuation. However, this Appeal was negatived.
2.5. OP No.1 filed OA No.260/00356 of 2022 laying a challenge both to the termination order handed by the Disciplinary Authority and also the order whereby his Departmental Appeal came to be negatived. The Tribunal by the impugned order granted relief to him. Aggrieved thereby, this Petition is presented. OP No.1 has entered caveat through his learned counsel, who vehemently Page 4 of 9 opposes the Petition making submission in justification of the impugned order.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
3.1. The first contention of the Panel Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the Tribunal could not have relied upon a Calcutta High Court judgment in Pawan Kumar Niroula v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 15 inter alia holding that the 2013 Act is not applicable to case of the kind, is true. The Apex Court in SLP No.3241/2022 between Navadaya Vidyalaya Samiti v. Pawan Kumar Niroula, has granted interim stay on 04.03.2022 against the said judgment. Learned Panel Counsel for the Petitioners is right in placing reliance on Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Assn. CSI, AIR 1992 SC 1439 in support of his contention, that once a judgment is stayed, its precedential force is kept in suspended animation. However, this is not the end of the matter. We have to examine whether impugned order is sustainable, independent of this point.
3.2. Against termination order, OP No.1 had preferred Departmental Appeal inter alia on the ground that he has been given honourable acquittal after a full-fledged trial of the criminal Page 5 of 9 case and therefore, his termination should be set at naught in the light of Ram Lal supra. However, the Appellate Authority gave only a lip service to this ruling on the principle that a Disciplinary Inquiry is different from criminal proceeding. Nobody disputes this proposition. However, there was another important aspect, namely, the effect of honourable acquittal on the sustainability of order of termination from service. On identical set of facts and evidentiary material both the Disciplinary Inquiry and the criminal proceedings were held. The Inquiry was resulted into termination order dated 28.06.2021. However, during pendency of the Appeal, the Criminal Court entered acquittal order. This Court, in Dharmapada Ghadai v. Union of India, 2025 (II) ILR-CUT-385 at paragraph 6.4., has observed as under:
"6.4. Since the ground of honourable acquittal was passionately pressed into service, a little more deliberation in this regard is undertaken. The concept of 'honourable acquittal' is easy to say, but difficult to employ, there being no statutory definition thereof, more particularly in the IPC, CrPC & Indian Evidence Act. Lord Williams, J. in ROBERT STUART WAUCHOPE v. EMPEROR, observed: 4 ...
The idea of 'honourable acquittal' is not easy to define although it can be illustrated, vide Karnataka High Court decision in P.V. Rudrappa v. State of Karnataka,. If an accused is discharged at pre-trial stage or the criminal proceeding launched against him is quashed, there is no difficulty in treating the same as the cases of 'honourable acquittal' for the limited purpose of disciplinary enquiry. A case of 'honourable acquittal' may arise when, after trial the Criminal Court orders acquittal with any of nearly following observations:
(i) that accused is falsely prosecuted to seek vengeance or for such other ulterior motive;Page 6 of 9
(ii) that there is absolutely no evidence or very little evidence on record to implicate the accused in the criminal case;
(iii) that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused;
(iv) that the prosecution witnesses are unworthy of any credence and their version does not generate any confidence...."
3.3. The case of Dharmapada supra has been decided in the light of Apex Court decision in Ram Lal supra to the effect that when honourable acquittal is granted by the Criminal Court on the same allegations/charges, the employee is punished in a Disciplinary Inquiry is ordinarily entitled to emerge scathe free from the allegations/charges. The Criminal Court, in the POCSO case, at paragraphs 11 & 12, has observed as under:
"11. Viewing in totality and taking into account the testimony of the prosecution witness, as narrated hereinabove, no criminality is found either in the evidence of the victim or in the evidence of her parents and brother. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be fraught with great amount of risk to mount accusation on the accused. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home any of the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
12. In the result, therefore, the accused is held not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 354/354-A/354- D of the IPC and under Section 8/12 of the POSCO Act and he is acquitted there from in terms of Section 235 (1) of the Cr.P.C."
The above observations of the Criminal Court, as rightly contended by learned Counsel representing OP No.1, would constitute a case of honourable acquittal substantially on the same allegations. There may after duly weighing the version of victim girl and her parents, who had deposed as prosecution witnesses. It is nobody's case that Page 7 of 9 said judgment is put in challenge in Appeal or otherwise. The Departmental Appeal being continuation of the original proceedings in which termination order came to be passed, the Appellate Authority should have voided the said order on the basis of order of honourable acquittal that came post termination. That having not been done, the Tribunal has rightly granted relief to the OP No.1.
3.4. The Tribunal has also noted that OP No.1 has already attained the age of superannuation and therefore, opined that no useful purpose would be served to remand the matter for a de novo inquiry in the light of acquittal order handed by the Criminal Court. In a way the impugned order has brought about a just result, notwithstanding some arguable infirmities therein. We are examining Tribunal's order in a limited supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, regardless of ornamental invocation of Article 226. Petitioners being an instrumentality of State under Article 12, have to conduct themselves as model employers vide Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234. An employee, who has attained the age of superannuation after putting in a long service of 35 years, in our considered opinion, should be allowed to live peacefully in the evening of his life. This view is inarticulate in the impugned order of Tribunal.
Page 8 of 9
3.5. The vehement submission of learned Panel Counsel for the Petitioners that both in the Preliminary Enquiry and the Summery Inquiry the OP No.1 has been rightly inducted does not advance the case in Appeal in the face of the order of Honourable Acquittal entered by the jurisdictional Criminal Court, after a full- fledged trial. It is not the case of Petitioners that any further challenge is laid to the said order and the same has been vacated or modified. Though several other grounds were urged and some other rulings were also cited in support of the case of Petitioners, we are not inclined to undertake their examination in our limited jurisdiction, what has been observed above being sufficient.
In the above circumstances, this Petition being unworthy of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. The impugned order of the Tribunal shall be given effect to in its letter & spirit within an outer limit of three (3) months without giving scope for contempt action.
Web copy of judgment to be acted upon.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Signature Not Verified Judge Digitally Signed Orissa High Court, Cuttack Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL.
The 16th Day of March, 2026/Basu PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 25-Mar-2026 13:12:25 Page 9 of 9