The Chairman Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti v. Dr. T. Murugesan & Ors.

For Petitioner : Mr. Rajappa Srinivas for Mr. J. Srinivasa MohanFor Respondents : Mr. Vijay Narayan, SC for M/s Karthik Mukundan, GAORDERK. CHANDRU, J.Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT) dated 09.6.2005 made in O.A. No. 1027 of 2004, the petitioners,who are the Chairman, Commissioner of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti[for short, 'NVS'] functioning under the Ministry of HRD at New Delhias well as the Deputy Director of NVS at Nongriss Hills, Shillong atMeghalaya State, have filed the present writ petition. 2.By the aforesaid order, the CAT set aside the order oftermination of the first respondent dated 13.6.2003, confirmed by theorder dated 31.8.2004 passed by the appellate authority, and directedreinstatement of the first respondent with all consequential benefits.3.This Court admitted the writ petition on 11.10.2006 andalso granted an interim stay on the same day. When the firstrespondent filed M.P. No. 2 of 2006 to vacate the stay order, thisCourt confirmed the stay and dismissed the vacate stay application.It directed the disposal of the main writ petition at an early date.4.The brief facts leading to the termination are as follows:-4.1.The first respondent was working as the Principal of theJawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Hailakandi in the State of Assam underthe control of the second respondent. A complaint was received thatthe first respondent had tried to exploit the innocence and modestyof a minor girl student studying in Class X of the said school takingadvantage of the absence of her parents from the house.Incidentally, the father of the minor girl was a Driver attached tothe school and they were staying in the campus itself. 4.2.The third petitioner conducted a preliminary investigationand concluded that the approach of the first respondent towards thegirl student of Class X was not honourable and after a detailedexamination of the report of the third petitioner, summary trial wasordered by a Committee into the allegations levelled against thefirst respondent. A Summary Inquiry was conducted on 27.10.2002 inthe presence of the first respondent. The Inquiry Committee, afterperusal of the record of the case and deposition of the firstrespondent made before the Committee, rendered a finding that thefirst respondent had made advance towards the girl student when shewas alone in her residence and concluded that he was prima facieguilty of immoral behaviour. The services of the first respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ were terminated by an order dated 13.6.2003 passed by the secondpetitioner, who is the competent authority. 5.The first respondent filed O.A. No. 860 of 2003. Thoughthe place of work of the first respondent was Meghalaya, he gave aChennai address and challenged the order of termination before theCAT, Chennai Bench. The said O.A. was disposed of by an order dated01.10.2003 directing the statutory appeal filed by the firstrespondent to be disposed of within a time frame fixed by the CAT.The appeal dated 30.6.2003 filed by the first respondent wasdismissed by an order dated 29.10.2003. Not satisfied with thedisposal, the first respondent filed a Contempt Application beingCont. P. No. 4 of 2004. The said application was disposed of by anorder dated 04.3.2004 holding that the appellate authority had notapplied his mind and, therefore, the appellate order was set aside.He was directed to re-hear the appeal after hearing the appellantpersonally and with a further direction to dispose of the appeal withan independent mind. 6.The Chairman of the NVS, who is also the Minister of HumanResources Development, New Delhi, heard the first respondentpersonally on 05.8.2004. The first respondent also submitted awritten representation on the same day. Thereafter, the Chairman ofthe NVS dismissed the appeal by an order dated 31.8.2004 againstwhich, he filed O.A. No. 1027 of 2004 and challenged the originalorder of termination as well as the appellate order.7.A detailed reply statement dated 14.2.2005 was filed beforethe CAT on behalf of the petitioners justifying the action takenagainst the first respondent. 8.The CAT, after hearing both sides, came to the conclusionthat it was wrong for the disciplinary authority to have dispensedwith the enquiry proceedings as he had not recorded reasons for notholding an enquiry on the ground that it was not reasonable andpracticable and there was lack of application of mind which resultedin an arbitratry action. It was also stated that when the thirdpetitioner / Deputy Director sent a report to the second petitionerCommissioner about the incident, he was accompanied by his wife andher statement was taken into account and such a statement has nolegal value in the eye of law as that of independent person. Sinceher statement was taken into account for passing the orders ofsuspension as well as dismissal, it will vitiate the petitioners ininitiating the proceedings. In that view of the matter, the CATaccepted the contentions of the first respondent and rejected thecontentions of the petitioners. It finally resulted in setting asidethe order of termination and the petitioners were directed toreinstate the first respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.Heard the arguments of Mr. Rajappa, learned counselrepresenting Mr. J. Srinivasa Mohan, appearing for the petitioner andMr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel leading M/s KarthikMukundan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.10.Learned counsel for the petitioners made a detailedsubmission stating that the findings rendered by the CAT was perverseand it did not peruse the records properly. The learned counselsubmitted that the School in which the first respondent was engagedwas a co-educational institution and it was the duty of the firstrespondent, being the Principal, to protect the safety, security andmodesty of the students. By a notification dated 16.12.1993, theNVS had authorised the Commissioner to terminate the services of anyemployee, who was found prima facie guilty of moral turpitudeinvolved in sexual offence or exhibition of immoral sexual behaviourtowards any student after such Summary Enquiry as deemed practicable.11.He further submitted that in a case of this nature, it wasnot practicable to hold a detailed enquiry in view of the sensitivenature of the issue and such action taken in the earliercircumstances has been upheld by the Courts. It was also statedthat the third petitioner, who was named in his individual capacity,conducted the enquiry strictly as per the Rules and his wife was nota stranger and she was working as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT)(Mathematics) at the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyala, Assam. She, being awoman, was able to question the girl so as to bring out the truth andat the time when the girl and her parents came to lodge a complaint,the third petitioner had examined the girl in detail. The Director –cum – Commissioner had recorded the reasons for dispensing with theregular enquiry. The Director, being the competent authority, wassatisfied that the first respondent was prima facie guilty of moralturpitude and he was also satisfied that it was not expedient to holdany enquiry as it will cause serious embarassment to the girl studentand the reasons are recorded in the file which has been reflected inthe order passed. Even on further appeal, the highest authority,viz., the Chairman had concurred with the action taken by the thirdpetitioner and such action taken in the purity of administrationcannot be found fault with by the exercise of limited judicial reviewpower conferred on the CAT.12.Per contra, Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counselappearing for the first respondent submitted that the enquiryconducted by the third petitioner supported by the statement of hiswife, has no value in the eye of law and no termination order can bepassed on the basis of such statement. Though the CAT held thatthere is power to dispense with the enquiry but the decision makingprocess leading to such conclusion was held to be not rational andfair. It also held that the Deputy Commissioner / DistrictCollector of Hailakandi District, Assam had conducted an enquiry andsent an independent report which has been brushed aside on irrelevant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consideration. The allegation that the first respondent had gone tothe Driver's room with an intention of exploiting the modesty of thegirl student (who is also the Driver's daughter) was baseless and theevidence of the Chowkidar clearly gives lie to the charges madeagainst the first respondent. He also submitted that there is nomaterial record to show that the first respondent misbehaved with thegirl student. The finding of the appellate authority that thereport sent by the Deputy Commissioner / District Collector was inthe absence of recording the statement of the girl student and herparents may not be correct. The girl student and her parents didnot appear before the appellate authority inspite of notices issuedto them. He also stated that there was an inordinate delay infiling the writ petition.13.At this stage, Mr. Rajappa, learned counsel appearing forthe NVS intervened and stated that there are many issues which couldnot be put in the affidavit and there were forces at Chennai whichattempted to thwart the filing of the writ petition. It was aftergetting the entire records, the headquarters took the decision tofile the writ petition and hence, there was some delay.14.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied uponthe judgment of the Supreme Court in Avinash Nagra v. NavodayaVidyalaya Samiti and others [1997 (2) SCC 534]. In that judgment,the Supreme Court also dealt with a similar case and exhorted as tohow a teacher should behave as a role model. The following passagesfound in paragraphs 11 and 12 may be usefully referred:-Para 11:"It is in this backdrop, therefore, that the Indiansociety has elevated the teacher as “Guru Brahma, GururVishnu, Guru Devo Maheswaraha”. As Brahma, the teachercreates knowledge, learning, wisdom and also createsout of his students, men and women, equipped withability and knowledge, discipline and intellectualismto enable them to face the challenges of their lives.As Vishnu, the teacher is preserver of learning. AsMaheswara, he destroys ignorance. Obviously, therefore,the teacher was placed on the pedestal below theparents. The State has taken care of service conditionsof the teacher and he owes dual fundamental duties tohimself and to the society. As a member of the nobleteaching profession and a citizen of India he shouldalways be willing, self-disciplined, dedicated withintegrity to remain ever a learner of knowledge,intelligently to articulate and communicate and imbibein his students, as social duty, to impart education,to bring them up with discipline, inculcate to abjureviolence and to develop scientific temper with a spiritof enquiry and reform constantly to rise to higher https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ levels in any walk of life nurturing constitutionalideals enshrined in Article 51-A so as to make thestudents responsible citizens of the country. Thus theteacher either individually or collectively as acommunity of teachers, should regenerate thisdedication with a bent of spiritualism in broaderperspective of the constitutionalism with secularideologies enshrined in the Constitution as an arm ofthe State to establish egalitarian social order underthe rule of law. Therefore, when the society has givensuch a pedestal, the conduct, character, ability anddisposition of a teacher should be to transform thestudent into a disciplined citizen, inquisitive tolearn, intellectual to pursue in any walk of life withdedication, discipline and devotion with an enquiringmind but not with blind customary beliefs. Theeducation that is imparted by the teacher determinesthe level of the student for the development,prosperity and welfare of the society. The quality,competence and character of the teacher are, therefore,most significant to mould the calibre, character andcapacity of the students for successful working ofdemocratic institutions and to sustain them in theirlater years of life as a responsible citizen indifferent responsibilities. Without a dedicated anddisciplined teacher, even the best education system isbound to fail. It is, therefore, the duty of theteacher to take such care of the pupils as a carefulparent would take of its children and the ordinaryprinciple of vicarious liability would apply wherenegligence is that of a teacher. The age of the pupiland the nature of the activity in which he takes partare material factors determining the degree andsupervision demanded by a teacher.Para 12:"It is axiomatic that percentage of education amonggirls, even after independence, is fathom deep due toindifference on the part of all in rural India exceptsome educated people. Education to the girl children isnation’s asset and foundation for fertile humanresources and disciplined family management, apart fromtheir equal participation in socio-economic andpolitical democracy. Only of late, some middle-classpeople are sending the girl children to co-educationalinstitutions under the care of proper management and tolook after the welfare and safety of the girls.Therefore, greater responsibility is thrust on themanagement of the schools and colleges to protect theyoung children, in particular, the growing up girls, to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bring them up in disciplined and dedicated pursuit ofexcellence. The teacher who has been kept in charge,bears more added higher responsibility and should bemore exemplary. His/her character and conduct should bemore like Rishi and as loco parentis and such is theduty, responsibility and charge expected of a teacher.The question arises whether the conduct of theappellant is befitting with such higherresponsibilities and as he by his conduct betrayed thetrust and forfeited the faith whether he would beentitled to the full-fledged enquiry as demanded byhim? The fallen standard of the appellant is the tip ofthe iceberg in the discipline of teaching, a noble andlearned profession; it is for each teacher andcollectively their body to stem the rot to sustain thefaith of the society reposed in them. Enquiry is not apanacea but a nail in the coffin. It is self-inspectionand correction that is supreme. It is seen that therules wisely devised have given the power to theDirector, the highest authority in the management ofthe institution to take decision, based on the fact-situation, whether a summary enquiry was necessary orhe can dispense with the services of the appellant bygiving pay in lieu of notice. Two safeguards have beenprovided, namely, he should record reasons for hisdecision not to conduct an enquiry under the rules andalso post with facts the information with Minister,Human Resources Department, Government of India in thatbehalf. It is seen from the record that the appellantwas given a warning for his sexual advances towards agirl student but he did not correct himself and mendhis conduct. He went to the girls’ hostel at 10 p.m. inthe night and asked the hostel helper, Bharat Singh tomisguide the girl by telling her that Bio-ChemistryMadam was calling her; believing the statement, shecame out of the hostel. It is the admitted positionthat she was an active participant in culturalactivities. Taking advantage thereof, he misused hisposition and made sexual advances towards her. When sheran away from his presence, he pursued her to the roomwhere she locked herself inside; he banged the door.When he was informed by her roommates that she wasasleep, he rebuked them and took the torch from theroom and went away. He admitted his going there andadmitted his meeting with the girl but he had given afalse explanation which was not found acceptable to theEnquiry Officer, namely, Asstt. Director. Afterconducting the enquiry, he submitted the report to theDirector and the Director examined the report and foundhim not worthy to be a teacher in the institution. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Under those circumstances, the question arises whetherthe girl and her roommates should be exposed to thecross-examination and harassment and further publicity?In our considered view, the Director has correctlytaken the decision not to conduct any enquiry exposingthe students and modesty of the girl and to terminatethe services of the appellant by giving one month’ssalary and allowances in lieu of notice as he is atemporary employee under probation. In thecircumstances, it is very hazardous to expose the younggirls to tardy process of cross-examination. Theirstatements were supplied to the appellant and he wasgiven an opportunity to controvert the correctnessthereof. In view of his admission that he went to theroom in the night, though he shifted the timings from10 p.m. to 8 p.m. which was not found acceptable to therespondents and that he took the torch from the room,do indicate that he went to the room. The misguidingstatement sent through Bharat Singh, the hostel peon,was corroborated by the statements of the students; butfor the misstatement, obviously the girl would not havegone out from the room. Under those circumstances, theconduct of the appellant is unbecoming of a teachermuch less a loco parentis and, therefore, dispensingwith regular enquiry under the rules and denial ofcross-examination are legal and not vitiated byviolation of the principles of natural justice."15.He also submitted that in that judgment, the Supreme Courtdealt with the power of the Director in dispensing with the enquiry.The question was framed in paragraph 6, which is extracted below, wasanswered in paragraph 12, which is already extracted above.Para 6:".... In such cases, procedure prescribed for holdingenquiry for imposing major penalty in accordance withthe Rules as applicable to the employees of therespondent, shall be dispensed with provided that theDirector is of the opinion that it is not expedient tohold regular enquiry on account of seriousembarrassment to the student or his guardians or suchother practical difficulties. The Director shall recordin writing the reasons under which it is not reasonablypracticable to hold such enquiry and he shall keep theChairman of the Samiti informed of the circumstancesleading to such termination of services. It would thusbe seen that in a given situation, instead of adoptingthe regular procedure under the Rules to terminate theservices of an employee, the notification prescribesthe procedure to dispense with such enquiry, subject to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the conditions mentioned above. The question is whetherthe order terminating the services of the appellant interms of his appointment letter is in violation of theRules or the principles of natural justice?...."16.Thereafter, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment ofthe Supreme Court in Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and othersv. Babban Prasad Yadav and another [2004 (13) SCC 568] wherein theSupreme Court referred to Avinash Nagra's case (cited supra) andapproved the reasoning in paragraph 11 which reads as follows:-Para 11:"The High Court particularly erred in requiring thatsuch a charge needed to be proved beyond all reasonabledoubt. This is against the principles governing adepartmental enquiry in general and the unchallengedrules of the appellant institution in particular. Thereason sought to be given by the Director fordispensing with the enquiry has been held by the HighCourt to be “unconstitutional and not legal”. Thisfinding is also unacceptable since the Director hasused the language of the rule. Furthermore, havingregard to the approval of the rule in question in thedecision of Avinash Nagra it was not open to the HighCourt to have come to the conclusion that the reasongiven by the Director for dispensing with the enquirywas unconstitutional or illegal."17.The learned counsel for the petitioners also referred tothree unreported decisions of the Delhi High Court relating to schoolemployees and copies of the judgments were also furnished to thelearned counsel for the first respondent. 18.In Jwala Singh v. Union of India and others [W.P. (C)No. 6529 of 2005], the Delhi High Court dealt with the case ofoutraging modesty of a girl student studying IX Std. and afterreferring to the judgment in the Avinash Nagra's case (cited supra)and Babban Prasad Yadav (cited supra), the Court upheld the actiontaken by the NVS and in paragraphs 10, 11 and 13, the Delhi HighCourt dismissed the case of the Teacher and the same may bereproduced:- Para 10:"We cannot resist commending the Commissioner ofNavodaya Vidyalaya Samiti for the view taken by him. Helooked into the matter in the right perspective andrefused to get carried away by what, for instance, hadbeen stated by Assistant Director, Shri Waghmere andMs. Kaneez Fatima. They had dismissed the complaint onthe basis, for example, of contradictions about theplace and date of the incident. The Commissioner wasright in observing that the question which needed to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ gone into was whether the incident did take place ornot and since the inquiry officers did not say that theincident had not taken place, the Commissioner rightlydispensed with the holding of regular inquiry andpassing the order, terminating the services of thepetitioner.Para 11:On going through the records, we are also satisfiedthat all the preconditions for exercising the extra-ordinary power of dispensing with the holding of aregular inquiry are satisfied in the present case.Therefore, the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Courtare applicable to the facts of this case on all fours."Para 13:"A school is not merely bricks and mortar. It is thenursery of idealism and character. The teacher is theperson who nurtures the nursery and it is under himthat it grows. He affects eternity. What if a teacherfalls from the standard expected of him? In such acase, surgical treatment may be called for and thepresent is one such case."19.Again, another Division Bench of the Delhi High court inJ.P. Yadav v. Union of India and others [W.P. No. 17458 of2004], by its judgment dated 06.12.2005, dealt with the case of aTeacher working in KVS, who exhibited his immoral behaviour towards XStd. girl and held that the summary enquiry held against the Teacherwas valid. 20.Similarly, in Krishna Murari Sharma v. Union of Indiaand others [W.P. No. 23549 of 2005], another Division Bench of theDelhi High Court vide its judgment dated 15.12.2005 upheld theaction taken against a Teacher of KVS wherein under Article 81(b) ofthe Education Code (which is similar to the rule in NVS) was invokedfor conducting a summary enquiry. 21.The learned counsel thereafter referred to another DivisionBench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Kendriya VidyalayaSangathan & others v. Gauri Shankar [W.P. (C) No. 4400 of 2003,disposed on 12.12.2007] wherein the order of the CAT in interferingwith the punishment given by the school to a Group D employee was setaside by the Division Bench. In paragraphs 13 to 15, the DivisionBench took exception to the CAT in interfering with the punishmentgiven to a staff of the school run by KVS. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Para 13:"The guidelines prescribed under Rule 81(b) fordispensing with holding of a regular inquiry under theCCS(CCS) Rules, 1965, is that the Commissioner shouldbe of the opinion that it is not expedient to hold aregular inquiry on account of the serious embarrassmentthat may be caused to the student or his guardians orsuch other practical difficulties. Thisdecision/opinion has to be that of the Commissioner onwhatever preliminary inquiry he might have gotcontacted and on the basis of the complaint/responsesbefore him. In a case like the present, it can hardlybe said that it would not have been highly embarrassingfor both the students in question as well as theirguardians to have faced an inquiry into the conduct ofthe respondent wherein he is stated to have physicallyabused the two students. The Commissioner, in hisimpugned order has recorded the reasons as to why it isnot reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in thepresent case. The Appellate order is even more clearwhich records detailed reasons of the AppellateAuthority for rejecting the departmental appeal againstthe respondent.Para 14:"It was not for the Tribunal to have sat in judgmentover the subjective satisfaction of the disciplinaryauthority and the appellate authority, which were basedon cogent reasons and materials brought on record.Merely because the parents of the two students mighthave been aware of their relationship as noticed by theTribunal (a fact, which is not borne out from therecord), that by itself also was not enough to say thatthere was no question of any embarrassment to thestudents or their guardians in the holding of aninquiry. In our view, the present was a fit casewhere article 81 (b) of the Educational Code wasrightly invoked by the Petitioner. This appears to usto be a case where the Respondent tried to exploit thevulnerable situation in which the two students foundthemselves. We are sorry to say that the Tribunal hasacted with complete indifference and lack ofsensitivity in making its aforesaid observations and wehave no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order.Para 15:In such like matters, the School administration isentitled to show zero tolerance. Parents send theirchildren to school on the trust and belief that theirwards are safe from such exploitation at the hands of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ teachers and other staff of the school and that theschool administration shall protect them against suchexposure. If such conduct is tolerated or overlookedand treated with leniency, it would not only encourageothers to indulge in similar misadventures, but alsoerode the confidence of the parents who send theiryoung boys and girls to school."In the light of the above factual matrix and in the light of thebinding legal precedents, the learned counsel wanted this Court toallow the writ petition by setting aside the order of the CAT.22.Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for thefirst respondent relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court for thepurpose of showing the circumstances under which an enquiry can bedispensed with and the permissible nature of the judicial review. (a)Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar[2003 (4) SCC 579] (b)Ex. Constable Chhote Lal v. Union of India and others[2000 (10) SCC 196] (c)Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and others [1991 (1)SCC 362](d)Chief Security officer and others v. Singasan RabiDas [1991 (1) SCC 729] 23.The learned Senior Counsel also referred to a DivisionBench judgment of this Court in G. Pushkala v. High Court ofJudicature at Madras, rep. by its Registrar General, Chennai andothers [2007 (4) M.L.J. 692]. 24.That case also related to a complaint of sexual harassment.The Division Bench which dealt with the case also struck a note ofcaution while dealing with such cases in paragraphs 26 and 28 and itreads as follows:-Para 26:"But, at the same time, it should be kept in mind thata charge of this nature is very easy to make and isvery difficult to rebut. When a plea is taken of falseimplication for extraneous reasons, Courts have a dutyto make deeper scrutiny of the evidence and decide theacceptability or otherwise of the accusations. Everycare has to be taken to separate chaff from the grain.The veracity and genuineness of the complaint should bescrutinised to prevent any misuse of such laudable lawsenunciated for the upliftment of the society and forequal rights of people without gender discrimination,by anybody under the garb of 'sexual harassment', lestthe justice rendering system would become a mockery."Para 28:"Keeping in mind the above propositions of law laiddown by the Apex Court and further since, as hasalready been adverted to supra that there is no appeal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ remedy to the delinquent officer as against theimpugned order of compulsory retirement inflicted onhim with a stigma and the only remedy to him is underArticle 226 of the Constitution, we are of the viewthat in such matters, the Court should be more vigilantin assessing the case so as to render justice, to itstrue meaning to uphold the majesty of justice andlaw."25.Considering the rival submissions, it must be seen whetherthe victim girl has to be examined in such circumstances.Therefore, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the DivisionBench of this Court presided by P. Sathasivam, J. (as he then was) inC.Parthiban v. Dr.K.Meena and others [2007 (3) M.L.J. 492] and inparagraph 15, it was held as follows:-Para 15:".... We are of the view that in order to protect themodesty of girl students and to prevent theirunnecessary exposure at an enquiry, they need notappear and depose before the present Enquiry Officer.On the other hand, the Enquiry Officer is directed totake note of their statements, supply copy of the sameto respondents 4 to 7 and after giving opportunity tothem to offer their further response, if any, theEnquiry Officer is free to submit his report forfurther action...." 26.In Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others[1997 (6) SCC 241], the Supreme Court laid down guidelines by whichcomplaints of sexual harassment in work place can be enquired into bythe employers. Vishaka's Case (cited supra) initially directed theemployers to take action in case of complaints of sexual harassmentby a special committee to be constituted. After the judgment ofSupreme Court most of the employers have understood that thecommittee's report are only recommendary and as done so as to findout a prima facie case warranting further initiation of disciplinaryaction separately under the relevant service rules. Because of this understanding of law, women, who were sexuallyharassed, were made to appear twice in two separate enquiries andthis led to further harassment and humiliation.27.Subsequently, the Supreme Court considered the complaintsmade by various representations of the woman's organisations andpassed further order clarifying Vishaka's case where the SupremeCourt directed Governments to strictly go by the report of the SexualHarassment Committee and made the enquiry report as the startingpoint of further proceedings. The employers were directed to proceedfrom the stage of the enquiry report and take appropriate action. Inthis regard, the Supreme Court also directed for amendment ofrelevant Service Rules. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

28.This order of the Supreme Court was made on 26.01.2004in Medha Kotwal Lele & others -vs- Union of India and others [W.P.(Crl) Nos. 173-177/1999]. The order of the Supreme Court reads asfollows:-"Several Petitions had been filed before thisCourt by Women Organisations and on the basis of thenote prepared by the Registrar General that in respectof sexual harassment cases the Complaints Committeeswere not formed in accordance with the guidelinesissued by this Court in Vishaka -Vs- State of Rajasthan(1997 (6) SCC 241 and that these petitions fell underclause (6) of the PIL Guidelines given by this Courti.e. "Atrocities on Women" and in any event theGuidelines setout in Vishaka were not being followed.Thereupon, this Court treated the petitions as WritPetitions filed in public interest.Notice had been issued to several partiesincluding the Government concerned and on gettingappropriate responses from them and now after hearingLearned Attorney General for UOI and learned Counsel wedirect as follows:-"Complaints Committee as envisaged by theSupreme Court in its Judgment in Vishakas Case1997 (6) SCC 241 at 253, will be deemed to be aninquiry authority for the purposes case 1997 (6)SCC 241 at 253 will be deemed to be an inquiryauthority for the purposes of Central CivilServices (Conduct) Rules 1964 (hereinafter calledCCS Rules) and the report of the complaintsCommittee shall be deemed to be an inquiry reportunder the CCS rules. Thereafter the disciplinaryauthority will act on the report in accordancewith the rules".Similar amendments shall also be carried outin the Industrial Employment (Standing Order)Rules."29.Therefore, now the employers can have only one stageaction. After the Sexual Harassment Committee's report, they mustproceed to impose punishment on an employee found guilty of sexualharassment. This order came to be passed by the Supreme Court, asthe Court had received complaints that the earlier procedure led thewoman being further harassed by attending before two separateenquiries one by the Special Committee and the other before theEnquiry Officer appointed in terms of Service Rules. In the lightof the above, the question of examining the victim girl in thepresence of the first respondent does not arise. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

30.With reference to the present enquiry in question, theparties have placed the entire records before this Court and it wasperused. The first respondent, in the light of the complaint madeagainst him, was first to make character assassination against thegirl student. He obtained statements from the Chowkidar and twoMess Helpers dated 27.10.2002. The translated version furnished inthe typed set reads as follows:-".... Driver's daughter's manner was not good. Sheused to go to mess by wearing half pant and halfshirt. Principal sir many times instructed her towear the normal dress of the school like other girls.Then Principal Sir made her stop her wearing suchdresses. As because here both Hindu, Muslim studentswear nice dresses which maintain the culture of theSchool. Driver's wife became angry on the Principaland further made all these unwanted problems createdin the school and spoil the reputation of thePrincipal."31.Even in the letter dated 27.10.2002, the Chowkidar spokeabout the Principal going to the residential portion of the girl'shouse. He described as to what had happened on that day. Therelevant portion is as follows:-".... Then Principal Sir and myself went to theDriver's class-room residence and persuaded to appearfor Exams. At that time her brother MasterRohming, Class – VII was also present in the room.After shouting her to appear for the Exam, when shewas about to go to the Exam hall as a fatherlyaffection Principal Sir caught hold her hand andadvised her to go to the Exam hall."32.Meena Bora Dutta, a staff Nurse in her report stated asfollows:-".... Within 1 minute, I came to downfloor. I haveseen driver's wife loudly shouting and abuse ourPrincipal Sir. She also said that she Sir tries tomisuse her daughter Eliser, who is a student of classX of our school. Then Sir requested me to check-upher entire body. I observed her whole body. Asper my medical report nothing is found in her entirebody...."33.A number of statements from the students were obtained bythe Principal. In all the reports, there is a statement that themother of the girl abused the Principal in front of everyone. Butthe reasons for such outburst were not mentioned therein. It wasthereafter a command performance was made to mobilise the parentsand students to support the case of the Principal and they also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conducted prayer meetings in his support. Even in the letter writtenby the first respondent to the third petitioner (in page 4), he hadstated as follows:-"The driver and the driver's family members are notinterested to solve the problem instead they wanted tomake the issue bigger to spoil the institution. Hermother motivated the girl to talk all unnecessaryfalse allegation against the Principal and tarnish theimage of the Vidyalaya."34.It was a case of an orchestrated campaign. It wasthereafter the second respondent (Deputy Commissioner) conducted anenquiry without any authority and sent a report dated 12.3.2003. Thesaid report has neither any legal basis. He neither examined thevictim girl nor her parents. Because at that time, the Driver hadbeen transferred to a far off place and it was not clear as to whatwas the notice served on them. Further, they were also not legallyrequired to give any statement before him. 35.In any event, the third petitioner, by his report dated08.11.2002, has faithfully rendered the following findings againstthe first respondent:-"1. On 27.10.202 a test was conducted for C1-Xstudents. The Class-X students were detained in thevidyalaya with the permission of the undersigned duringautumn break for special coaching. The daughter of thedriver Ms. Lalasriatpuii Cssakcssuak, who is also astudent of Cl-X did not came to attend the test. TheLungi clad Principal straightway went to her residence(a single room residence in the main school Bldg.) andbolted the door for inside, grasped the girl frombackside, who was alone (parents were out of station)kissed her three times, fondled her breast forseveral minutes and also grasped her hand forcefullybrought near to his private parts and asked her tofondle. After few seconds, he left the girl, went tothe window side, took out a bed-sheet and startedputting in the window, which was earlier withoutcurtain. The girl understood the motive of thePrincipal that he may rape her, she rushed out of theroom. After some time, when her parents came, shereported the matter to her parents. After knowing theincident, the mother of the girl started shouting inthe Vidyalaya and created horrible scene infront of theVidyalaya staff and students. Wife of the Principal,who is also a part-time teacher in the Vidyalaya afterhearing this incident, fainted in the building itself.The girl also confessed that it was the third time thatthe Principal molested her but she did not disclosed itto her parents due to shyness." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ . . ."From the above enquiry and facts, I come toconclusion that the approach of the Principal towardsgirl students are at all not desirable in hisprofession. This speaks very bad about a Principal ofa Co-educational residential institution, who isconsidered to be father of the all the children of thevidayalaya and his activities are supposed to be amotivating factor for others but the action of thePrincipal in both the above cases reveals that he istotally demotivating factor and he has created harm inthe modesty of the girl causing enormous trauma in thegirl. The image of the vidayalaya and of the Samitihas been affected very adversely because of such actionof the Principal."With this categorical finding of the third respondent, if theguidance shown by the Supreme Court in Avinash Nagra's case (citedsupra) is applied, then the CAT ought to have thrown out the case ofthe first respondent.36.Therefore, no exception can be taken to the actioninitiated by the petitioners. The CAT did not discuss any of theseissues in its order and merely went on its theme that there was noreason recorded for conducting a summary enquiry. No legalprecedents were either referred to nor discussed by the CAT. Theorder of the CAT shows its anxiety to somehow grant relief to thefirst respondent without there being any iota of justification inthis behalf. 37.In the light of the above legal precedents and the factualfindings recorded, we have no hesitation in setting aside the orderof the CAT dated 09.6.2005 made in O.A. No. 1027 of 2004.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the CAT isset aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ griToThe RegistrarCentral Administrative Tribunal(Chennai Bench)Chennai - 104+1 cc To M/s Karthik Mukundan, Advocate, SR.29204+1 cc To J. Srinivasa Mohan, Advocate, SR.29225 W. P. No. 38815 of 2006ssn [co]gkg/23.6