W.P.(C)--3488/2017. Case: R.S. MISRA Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.. High Court of Delhi (India)

Case NumberW.P.(C)--3488/2017
Judgement DateDecember 10, 2019
CourtHigh Court of Delhi (India)



Reserved on: 25th November, 2019 Pronounced on: 10th December, 2019

W.P. (C) 3488/2017 & C.M. APPLs. 3091/2019 and 3092/2019

R.S. MISRA .....Petitioner

Through: Petitioner-in-person.


THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: None.



J U D G M E N T %

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. :

1. The Petitioner, by way of the present petition, challenges an order 2nd September, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Principal Bench, New Delhi („CAT‟), dismissing his O.A. No.187/2015, well as an order dated 2nd November, 2016, dismissing his R.A.


2. It must be noted that the Petitioner, who appears in person, had stage on 23rd October 2017, sought permission to approach the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee („DHCLSC‟) for assistance. On 19th February, 2018, the Court appointed an amicus curiae

W.P. (C) 3488/2017 Page 1 of

his behalf. However, it appears that the Petitioner thereafter has appearing in person. Even today, he appeared in person and made submissions.

3. The background facts, as can be discerned from the impugned well as the documents placed on record, are that on 11th February, 1988, the Petitioner, who was working as a Post Graduate Teacher („PGT‟) Chemistry in the Kendriya Vidyalaya („KV‟) at Rajkot, was found “moral turpitude involving exhibition of immoral sexual behaviour the girl students of his Vidyalaya.” Thereby his services were with immediate effect. He was asked to be paid allowances equal to months in lieu of the notice period.

4. After the Petitioner‟s statutory appeal was dismissed by the Chairman the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), he challenged his termination way of W.P.(C) No.3354/1989 before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge referred to Article 81 (b) of the Education governing the KVS, which empowers the Commissioner to dispense with an enquiry, if he is satisfied “after such a summary enquiry as he deems proper and practicable in the circumstances” that any member of the KVS is facie guilty of moral turpitude involving the sexual offence of exhibition immoral sexual behaviour towards any student. The provision also the Commissioner to record in writing the reasons under which it was reasonable and practicable to hold such an enquiry. The learned Judge found nothing on the record to show that the Commissioner stage had come to the opinion that it would not be reasonable and practicable

W.P. (C) 3488/2017 Page 2 of

to hold an enquiry. The departmental file also did not show the formation or existence of any such opinion.

5. The Respondents then contended before the learned Single Judge Commissioner had material before him upon which he could form “opinion” fairly and as he had approved the office draft prepared Vigilance Department of the KVS by putting his signatures on it, the draft should be taken to be the reasons recorded by the Commissioner himself.

6. The learned Single Judge disagreed with this contention and held note of the Vigilance Officer could not become an order of Commissioner. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, leaving it to the KVS to proceed against the Petitioner afresh, as per the rules Education Code. This order of the learned Single Judge was upheld Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 4th July, 2000 in No.116/1994.

7. On 3rd October, 2000, the Petitioner was reinstated in service. It ordered that the period during which he was not in service i.e. from February, 1988 till the date of joining at the assigned place of posting Imphal should be treated as „dies-non‟.

8. This part of the order of treating the period as „dies-non‟ was again by the Petitioner by filing a contempt petition, being C.C.P. 2001, in which an order was passed on 23rd September, 2002, direction to the KVS to consider the case of the Petitioner as

W.P. (C) 3488/2017 Page 3 of

as possible as regards consequential reliefs. It was noted therein that reinstatement, a sum of Rs.11,48,625/-, after deduction of TDS, had paid to the Petitioner towards arrears of pay...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT