Case: Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.. Jharkhand High Court
| Judges | M.Y. Eqbal and Jaya Roy, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Citation | [2009 (1) JCR 363 (Jhr)] |
| Judgement Date | December 01, 2008 |
| Court | Jharkhand High Court |
Judgment:
M.Y. Eqbal, J., (At Ranchi)
-
In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.9.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 34/2006 whereby the tribunal remitted back the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration.
-
The petitioner Kendriya Vidyalya Santaghan is a registered Society fully financed by the Government of India to meet the educational needs of the children of transferable Central Government employees including defence personnel and to run the school. One of such school is running at Chakradharpur. On 1.2.2003 one complaint was made by Sri Rajesh Sarangi, local guardian of Kumari Varsha Tripathi, a student of class VIII in the said school at Chakradharpur, to the Principal about the misbehaviour with his ward by the respondent Muni Lal Prasad and demanded action against him. In the complaint it was alleged that on the sports day the respondent, who is a physical teacher in the school, called Kumari Varsha Tripathi in sports room alone and molested her and thereafter threatened her not to disclose the incident to any body. On receipt of the complaint, which was serious in nature, an enquiry committee was constituted by the Assistant Commissioner, vide order dated 22.2.2003. The committee comprised of Mrs. Sangita Roy, Principal Kendriya Vidyalya No. 2, Kharagpur and Sri A.B. Sinha, Principal Kekndriya Vidyalya, Tatanagar. The committee conducted a summary enquiry and found the respondent guilty of moral turpitude involving exhibition of immoral sexual behaviour towards Kumari Varsha Tripathi by calling her in sports room alone. The committee also found the resplendent involving in making indecent and unparliamentary language. In that summary enquiry the respondent was noticed and in response to the notice he submitted representation. On submission of report the commissioner perused the report of the enquiry committee and considered all the materials available on record. The commissioner also considered the complaints of the victim girl, the guardian and other students of class X and XI, whose statements were recorded during the summary enquiry. On consideration of all the materials, the commissioner found the respondent guilty of moral turpitude involving exhibition of immoral sexual behaviour towards girl students by calling her in sports room. On the sports day he put his hand inside the shirt of the girl and molested her and thereafter threatened her not to disclose the incident to any body. The commissioner, therefore, in exercise of power conferred upon him under Article 81 (B) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalya, terminated the services of the respondent with immediate effect.
-
Aggrieved by the said order of termination, the respondent preferred appeal before the Vice Chairman cum Additional Secretary being the appellate authority. The appellate authority, after considering the appeal and going through the report, came to the conclusion that the finding recorded in the report of the enquiry was substantiated by the materials available on record. Accordingly, the appellate authority held that the order of termination of service of the respondent passed by the commissioner was justified. The respondent thereafter challenged the impugned order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna being O.A. No. 34/2006. It was argued before the Tribunal from the side of the respondent that a detailed representation was filed before the Commissioner but the order was passed without application of mind. The appellate authority has not properly considered the ground raised in the memo of appeal. It was also argued that both the commissioner and the appellate authority have not considered the fact that the complainant Rajesh Sarangi subsequently submitted application withdrawing his complaint and the allegations made against the respondent. The tribunal, after referring few decisions and Article 81(B) of the Kendriya Vidyalya Sangathan Code, held that the appellate authority has not examined as to whether the disciplinary authority has considered the questions raised by the respondent i.e. the complaint made by victim girl student was not shown to the respondent, the guardian Rajesh Sarangi has subsequently withdrawn the complaint etc.
-
We have heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Trivedi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent.
-
As noticed above, the respondent Muni Lal Prasad, was a physical education teacher in the school. Admittedly a complaint was made by Rajesh Sarangi, guardian of Varsha Tripathi, a student of class VIII in the school, alleging misbehaviour and using abusive language against the girl. It was alleged that on the sports day the respondent called the girl alone in the sports room and molested her and threatened her with dire consequences. On receipt of the complaint the...
To continue reading
Request your trial