- (1.)The petitioner questions the order of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No. F. 8-22/91-KVS (Vig) dated 25-11-1991 terminating his services as trained graduate teacher in Hindi at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Eddumailaram in Medak District on the ground that he had been found guilty of moral turpitude involving immoral sexual behaviour towards girl student of the Vidyalaya after a summary enquiry under Article 81(b) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas.
(2.)The petitioner complaints that there was no enquiry preceding the order and that there was no charge sheet issued to him and that the impugned order was in utter violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that the 3rd respondent is the disciplinary authority who can impose a major penalty upon him inasmuch as he was appointed by him as a trained graduate teacher in Hindi and that the 2nd respondent who is a higher authority cannot assume the role of disciplinary authority and that he had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. He further alleges that the entire incident attributed to him was foisted upon him by the 4th respondent as he was inimically disposed towards him and had been harassing him and bore grudge against him because he was popular amongst the students. To illustrate his point, he states that on 26-1-1990, being a Republic Day, when he wanted to address the students and sought the permission of the 4th respondent to deliver a speech from the dias, the 4th respondent did not permit him; and when outgoing students of the 10th class requested him to present poetry in Hindi, that also was not permitted by the 4th respondent. He states that he was suddenly called to the office of the 4th respondent on 5-2-1991 at 9-15 A.M. and that when he went there he found one Sri G. Brahma Reddy, father of a student of II class by name Kumari G. Anjani, and another senior teacher by name Sri Chalapathi there according to him when he went into tine 4th respondent's room, in the presence of the 4th respondent and Sri Chalapathi, the said Brahma Reddy pounced on him and attempted to assault him without giving any reason and at the instance of Sri Chalapathi, the said Brahma Reddy was stopped from assaulting him. He further states that the said Brahma Reddy complained to the 4th respondent that he misbehaved with the girl Kum. G. Anjani aged about 7 years and that the 4th respondent and Sri Chalapathi forced him to give in writing tha the would not misbehave in future. He further states that even though he vehemently refused to give such letter, the 4th respondent prevailed upon him and requested him to give in writing such letter to bring peace and calm the situation, and in the interests of the school at large he obliged the 4th respondent by giving in writing as per tine words dictated by him. According to him, no further enquiry was held and in the circumstances narrated by him, tine impugned order terminating the services was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and is liable to be set aside.
(3.)In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Human Resources Development and is registered as a society under tine Societies Registration Act and is fully financed by the Government of India. It is also stated that its affairs are governed by a duly constituted Board of Governors headed by Minister of Education under Ministry of Human Resources Development, as its Chairman. The 2nd respondent i.e., the Commissioner is the head of the organisation and the Assistant Commissioners are its regional heads. It is also stated that the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan are governed by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 as amended from time to time, except in the following cases:- "a. Termination of services under the terms of appointment; b. Termination of services of an employee found guilty of immoral behaviour towards the students." Article 81(b)of the Education Code applicable for Kendriya Vidyalayas provides for termination of services of an employee found guilty of immoral behaviour towards students and it is as follows:-
"Wherever the Commissioner is satisfied after such a summary enquiry as he deems p roper 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 3 month's pay and allowences according 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 serious embarassment to the 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."
It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner's services were terminated following the procedure under the said Article 81(b). It is stated in the counter affidavit that the occurrence leading to the termination of the petitioner took place on 25-1-1991. What happened is stated as follows in the counter affidavit:
"One girl student of class IIA by name Kumari C.Anjani Reddy was late to the school and she did not attend the morning assembly. She was staying back in her class. Sri Arvind Kumar, Trained Graduate Teacher (Hindi) went to class IIA during the assembly time and took the girl to class IA telling her that he would give her chocolate. I submit that after going to that class room, he lifted the girl's frock and was about to open to his pant jip. The girl shouted 'Nahi Chahiye' and ran out of the class. Later the matter was reported to the Principal and thereafter the parent lodged the complaint to the Principal of Vidyalaya."
It is further stated that a summary enquiry was conducted by one Smt. M.Ramayya, Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, No.2,Golconda, Hyderabad and that she submitted a report on the said incident; in the case of such a summary enquiry, there was no need for issuing a charge sheet. It is also contended that in view of the peculiar nature of the occurrence, the resort to the summary enquiry under Article 81(b) was justified and that the impugned order cannot be attacked as arbitrary or violative of principles of natural justice as the petitioner himself had given a letter dated 4-2-1991 addressed to Sri G.Brahma Reddy, the father of the minor student Kumari Anjani. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the allegations against the 4th respondent are without any basis and that prior to the incident no complaint was received from the petitioner against the 4th respondent. The allegation that the petitioner was induced to give the letter by the 4th respondent and Sri Chalapathi is also denied.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.