- (1.) I. P. Vasishth, J. The petition revolves around the scope of Article 81 (b) of the Education Code of Kendriy Vidalaya, (hereinafter referred to as the Education Code) since the petitioner's services were dispensed with by the Commissioner on the ground of moral turpitude involving exhibition of immoral sexual behaviour towards a girl student.
(2.) FOR the proper appreciation of the point in issue it would be in the fitness of things to have a glance into the factual position. At the relevant time in March, 1994, the petitioner was working as Hindi teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Aliganj, Lucknow. His students included Km. Vineeta Bhat of the 1x-C. On 30-3-1993 during school bouts he asked Km. Vineeta Bhat to bring some corrected Hindi Project Notebooks from his room and as she went to collect the books, he followed her and in the solitude of the room tried to embrace and kiss her. Km. Vineeta successfully frustrated his efforts and ran away from there even though the petitioner tried to cover up the situation by proclaiming that he only wanted to brief her about some im portant questions which were likely to be asked in the Annual examination. Feeling outraged Km. Vineeta reported the matter to her mother Mrs. Nirmala Bhat respondent No. 4, who on very next day came down to the school and protested to the Principal respondent No. 3 against the un becoming behaviour of the teacher viz. the petitioner. The Principal and some other teachers tried to pacify Mrs. Nirmala Bhat but she returned in an agitated mood and on 2-4-1994 submitted a written complaint inci dentally the school was closed on 1st April, 1994 on account of Good Friday. Besides gathering facts at his own level the Principal sought the assistance of some lady teachers as well as the teacher incharge of Class IX-C to contact Km. Vineeta and to find out the truth as during the meanwhile on 16-4-1994 her mother Mrs. Nirmala Bhat again filed a written complaint even though the school staff had been busy with Annual examinations. On 18th April, 1994 the statement of Km. Vineeta was also taken down in writing and the matter was ultimately reported to the Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, who entrusted inquiry to one Smt. Rai, an Education Officer. She joined the petitioner B. Q. Dsvivedi also with the proceedings and on completing the requisite inquiry, submitted her report dated 30-4-1994 along with the related material like the statements of persons examined during the proceedings, to the Assistant Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, who then reported the entire material to the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidayalay Sangthan. Taking an over all view of the matter the latter passed the impugned order (Annexure 1) dated 5-8-1994 terminating the petitioner's services in exercise of the powers under Article 81 (b) of the Education Code of Kendriya Vidyalaya.
(3.) THE petitioner's grouse is that the provisions of Article 81 (b) of the Education Code is ultra vires being violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, that even if the Commissioner were assumed to have valid powers she never exercised such powers in a fair and equitable manner : that there was no inquiry under her authority ; that she did not apply her mind to all the facts and circumstances of the case and passed the order in a mechanical manner on accepting a very crioptic and cursory report of Mrs. Rai regardless of the fact that the Assistant Commissioner had no authority to entrust the inquiry to her and that the entire proceedings were tainted by the mala fide of the Principal who was inimical towards the petitioner otherwise the alleged episode itself was a tissue of lies based on conceptions, unworthy of credence. When the petitioner came up for hearing at the admission stage, after exchange of counters, before Brother S. C. Varma, J. on 7-9-1994, he was pleas ed to dismiss it on sustaining the respondents' preliminary objection that the petitioner should have first exhausted the alternative remedy of an appeal to the Chairman of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan. But the said judgment was set aside in Special Appeal by a Division Bench of this Court, which was pleased to direct its adjudication on merits as the availability of the alterna tive remedy was a doubtful proposition.;