COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN Vs. AJIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners challenge the correctness of the order dated 9.7.2009 (Annexure-1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in OA No. 389 of 2003 (Ajit Kumar V/s. Union:(sic) India and Ors.), whereby the order of termination of service of respondent No. 1 herein (the original applicant), by following the summary procedure, because it is reasonably not expedient and practicable to hold an enquiry, has been set aside. The authorities have taken the action in terms of Article 81(B), Chapter VIII, of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). We shall go by the description (sic) the parties occurring in the present proceeding.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the (sic) petition may be indicated. The Government of India has set up a net-work of schools, known as Kendriya Vidyalaya, throughout the country, inter alia, for the benefit of the government employees on transferable posts. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a primary teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Misa Cantonment, Nagaon, Assam, on 21.8.97. Boys as will as girls are admitted in this school to receive education. Seven male students one after the other complained against respondent No. 1 to the Principal of the school, of sexual harassment and exhibiting homosexual tendencies towards them. First such complaint was received in July 1999 The Principal of the school administered oral warning on respondent No. 1, notwithstanding which he did not improve, and was followed by more complaints against him in August 1999. Consequently the lady Principal of the school constituted an Enquiry Committee of four members of the teaching faculty of the school including herself. The Committee conducted a preliminary enquiry, wherein the statements of the complainants as well as respondent No. 1 were recorded. The Committee submitted its report dated 5.8.1999 (Annexure -7). Services of respondent No. 1 were terminated in terms of Article 81(B) of the Code by following the summary procedure and in view of the position that it is not expedient to hold a detailed enquiry as it will cause serious embarrassment to the students. Respondent No. 1 submitted his memo of appeal on 27.4.2000 (Annexure-5). The appeal was dismissed by order dated 8.11.2002 (annexure-3), leading to the present OA No. 389 of 2003. which has been allowed by order dated 9.7.2009, the order of dismissal from service has been set aside with consequential reliefs. Hence this writ petition at the instance of the authorities.

(3.) While assailing the correctness of the order of the learned Tribunal, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that Article 81(B) of the Code confers adequately canalized and guided powers on the authorities to dispense with the services of the employees. He next submits that, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it was inexpedient and reasonably not practicable to hold a detailed enquiry. It could in the present case be done at a grave risk of the reputation of boys and girls, to their acute embarrassment and massive psychological impact. He relies on the following reported judgments: