LAWS(ALL)-1995-1-69

BRIJ GOPAL DWIVEDI Vs. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN

Decided On January 17, 1995
BRIJ GOPAL DWIVEDI Appellant
V/S
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.