SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What a fall in standards? The teachers, who are more than parents to a child, are accused indecent sexual behaviour against a young child. Petitioner-teacher has shamefully stooped so low to molest a fourth class girl student. When dismissed, he still would look for interference by this Court. Schools are temple for learning. This incident takes place in the premises of Government Primary School at Bichpari, a temple of learning. The petitioner was detailed to teach as an interim arrangement. He asked the victim, Class IV th girl student, named, Komal, to bring a glass of water. In all innocence, she went to her 'GURU' with glass of water. To her shock, she was molested by this modern 'GURU' alongwith another teacher, Narinder Singh, who molested the hapless and helpless girl. The girl complained to her father, who then reported the matter to the Block Education Officer, Chhachhrauli. The matter was thereafter reported to civil police and an FIR under Section 354 IPC was also registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was placed under suspension, a mild knock on his knuckles. Charge sheet followed for being punished under Rule 7 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules. Subsequently, a decision was taken to dispense with the enquiry, considering the nature of allegations and the pious relationship that exists between the teacher and the taught and to avoid the young girl from being traumatized.

(2.) While dispensing with the regular enquiry and invoking the provisions of Article 311(2(b) of the Constitution of India, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shree Ram Shekari, 2004 8 SCC 153. The petitioner was accordingly dismissed from service. He, however, was able to manage his acquittal from the criminal charge. The poor girl and her father apparently have been made to resile from their stand. The representation of the petitioner against the order of dismissal was rejected and he is now before this Court.

(3.) The primary submission made in support of his plea is that there was no justification to dispense with the enquiry and that his dismissal from criminal charge would show that the allegation made against the petitioner were false. Counsel accordingly pleads that this may effect the order of his dismissal passed without holding any enquiry. In support, reference is made to the case of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and Anr., 2006 AIR(SC) 2129. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did observe that if department enquiry and criminal proceedings are based on identical and similar set of facts and same witnesses are examined, then finding contrary to the one recorded in the criminal Court would be unfair and oppressive. In my considered opinion, the ratio laid down in this case would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. Present case is the one, where departmental enquiry was dispensed with on the ground that a 4th class girl student should not be exposed to the trauma of facing searching questions and proceedings to avoid harassment. It can not, thus, be said that the same set of witnesses had deposed in criminal as well as departmental proceedings. The Block Education Officer, to whom the matter was reported at the very first instance by the girl and her father, stood by his version before the court. The criminal Court might have acquitted the petitioner on the ground that the witnesses have resiled but the standard required in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings varies and are entirely different. Here once the enquiry has been dispensed with and an independent person is available to support the allegations as reliable witness, the ratio of law laid down in G.M.Tank's case would not apply.