RAJENDTRA PRASAD PATHAK Vs. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.4.93 of the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, terminating his services as a primary teacher and for a direction on the respondents to reinstate him in service with full service benefits and to pay him compensation of Rs 2 lacs for harassment, victimisation and persecution.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the petitioner is a handicapped person. He graduated in mathematics from Gorakhpur University in the year 1972 and thereafter completed his B.Ed from the said University in the year 1976. He was then regularly appointed as a primary teacher in Mathematics in Kendriya Vidyalaya on 26.7.79, In 1983 he was removed from service and thereafter reinstated. In 1987 he was'posted in Kendriya Vidyalaya at Missa Cantonment, Nagaon, While he was acting as a primary teacher at the said Kendriya Vidyalaya he was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings by order dated 31.8.90 of the Chairman, Vidyalaya Management Committee and the said order of suspension was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Guwahati by his order dated 7.9.90. The petitioner received a letter dated 5.9.90 from Inquiry Officer, Dr.P.C. Bhatt, intimating him that a complaint had been made that he had sexually abused a girl of Class-II and he was asked to submit his comments regarding the incident. The petitioner then wrote to the Inquiry Officer of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan stating, inter alia, that the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya had permitted a girl to study in Class-II although she had mot been admitted to the school and that he put her four five times out of the class and told her to call her parents but she did not call her parents and on 19.8.90 when he was coming from Salona market the father of the girl wrapped his neck with a turban cloth and dragged him out of his scooter and started beating but he was; rescued by his colleague and taken to Section Hospital Missa Camp and from there he was transferred to Civil Hospital at Nagaon. In the said letter, the petitioner alleged that the girl child was studying without admission since Class-I and that the suspension order issued by the Chairman was without any cause. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted several representations to the Assistant Commissioner, Guwahati Region, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan as well as to the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. But the petitioner was not reinstated in service. Finally, by the impugned order dated 9.4.93, the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi, terminated the service of the petitioner with immediate effect under Article 81(b) of the Education Code of Kendriya Vidyalaya The petitioner has challenged the said order of termination on several grounds in this petition.

(3.) The first ground urged by Mr. A.K. Maheswari, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned order is vitiated by malafide. He submitted that the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya and the Chairman, Vidyalaya Management Committee had allowed a girl child to attend the Kendriya Vidyalaya in Classes-I and II without the child having been admitted to the school and only because the petitioner objected to this irregularity on the part of the Principal and the Chairman that his services have been terminated by the impugned order dated 9.4.93. Mr, Maheswari contended that both the Principal and the Chairman have been personally impleaded as respondents-4 and 5 respectively and the aforesaid allegations have been made in the writ petition against the said respondents-4 and 5; but neither of them has filed any affidavit-in-opposition denying the aforesaid allegations against them. He cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of PratapSingh-Vs-State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72, and State of Punjab-Vs-Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471, in support of his submission that where specific allegations have been made against the respondents, they can be said to be disputed only when affidavits denying the said allegations are filed by those parties against whom allegations are made. In the instant case, since no affidavit has been filed either by the Principal or the Chairman who are impleaded as respondents-4 and 5 respectively denying the allegations of malafide, this Court should treat the allegations of malafide as proved and quash the impugned order dated 9.4.93. Mr.Chand Mohammad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the records produced before the Court would clearly show that there are no malafides on the part of the authorities in terminating the services of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 9.4.93.