JOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a teacher of the third respondent's school. He challenges the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on him. THE brief facts of the case are the following:

(2.) THE allegation against the petitioner was that he molested a girl student on 3. 10. 1990. This incident came to light on the basis of a complaint given by the father of the girl on 8. 10. 1990. THE petitioner was served with a Memo of Charges on 7. 12. 1990 by the Manager. He was placed under suspension on 11. 10. 1990. THE Manager being dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, passed an order on 24. 12. 1990 for holding a formal enquiry.

(3.) THE Manager did not file any counter affidavit. But the learned counsel appearing for him submitted that the Enquiry Officer in ext. P10 has not relied on the evidence of other witnesses. She mainly went by the statement of the victim. He justifies the omission of the Enquiry Officer to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the victim as an act in public interest and supports the findings as justified on the facts of the case. THE learned Government Pleader submitted that having regard to the nature of the allegations, it is not necessary to give the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.