HON'BLE Dr. K.B.S. RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The applicant was working as a Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kozhikode. According to him, certain staff members were not comfortably poised with him, consequent to which some false and baseless complaint was launched against the applicant through a girl student hailing from andhra Pradesh alleging certain indecent behaviour. A fact finding inquiry was conducted which resulted in a summary trial and termination of service of the applicant with effect from 31.03.1995. The applicant was never informed of any of the details, much less was he handed over the alleged complaint and least was he called upon to give any statement. Thus, ignoring and by passing all norms of principles of natural justice, an arbitrary order of termination was passed. The said order has been totally cryptic. The applicant challenged the said order before the High Court of Kerala in O.P. No. 5929/05 wherein, the respondents took up a stand that the applicant has to avail an alternative remedy by appeal under the Educational Code of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. In fact, an appeal was preferred on 29.07.1995 and forwarded through a Member of Parliament followed by additional grounds of appeal dated 24.01.1996, vide Annexure A1 (a), (b) and (c). According to the applicant, no communication was sent as to the result of the appeal. It was only through the process of Right to Information Act that the applicant could receive a copy of the orders dated 23.04.2007, 08.05.2006 and 03.05.2006. Annexure A3 series refers. Even then copy of the Appellate Order was not served. The applicant moved W.P. No. 25829/07 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala which vide order dated 12.09.2007, permitted the applicant to obtain copy of the proceedings taken by the respondents without entering into the merits of the real controversy. Annexure A4 refers.
2. It is thereafter that the applicant could receive a copy of the order dated 12.11.2007 of the respondents purportedly in compliance of the order of the High Court. It has been stated therein that the decision of the Appellate Authority was already intimated to Shri. K. Muraleedharan, Member of Parliament vide D.O. letter dated 06.11.1995 (Annexure A7). The applicant has come up against the Annexure A-5 Order dated 12.11.2007 on various grounds as hereunder :-
(a) The action of the respondents in denying opportunity for hearing to the applicant is highly arbitrary, illegal, perverse, dishonest and unjustifiable and is in violation of the fundamental and civil rights of the applicant.
(b) The action of the respondents amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, fairness, fair play, law equity, good conscience, justice and are in strict violation of fundamental rights of the applicant guaranteed under the Constitution of the India and against all laws of the land.
(c) There was absolutely no need for the respondents to invoke Article 81(b) of the KVS Educational Code and the same was done purposefully to illegally terminate the applicant from service.
(d) The act and conduct on the part of the respondents in illegally terminating the services of the applicant, in concocting evidence, in acting arbitrarily and highhandedly and leading the applicant to lead a life of attached social stigma amounts to high levels of culpability, infringement of fundamental rights of the applicant and calls for heavy compensation to be paid to the applicant in addition to reinstatement forthwith.
(e) The applicant was terminated from the service even without clearing his earlier arrears and dues.
(f) The termination of service of the applicant is in direct violation of Article 311, 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India. The same is also against all accepted principles of law, fairness, principles of natural justice, all principles of justice and equity.
3. The following relief(s) have been sought :-
(i) Pass an order or direction, quashing the Annexure A5 letter dated 12.11.2007, A7 D.O. letter dated 06.11.1995, A13 Inquiry report and A19 termination order dated 31- 03-1995 Orders passed by the respondent.
(ii) Direct re-instatement of the applicant into service forthwith and to disburse the entire arrears of salary with back wages and related service benefits.
(iii) Direct the respondents to pay penal exemplary compensation to the tune of
Rupees 5 Lakhs to the applicant.
(iv) Direct the respondents to pay and the cost of the proceedings.
4. The respondents have contested the O.A. The O.A. filed at this distance of time is only on an experimental basis for getting reinstated in the service. The applicant's services were terminated on offences of moral turpitude. Provision exists for summary trial as per Rule 81 (B) of the Educational Code which states that where the Commissioner is satisfied after such a summary inquiry as he deems proper and practicable in the circumstances of the case that any member of Kendriya Vidyalaya has prima facie guilty of moral turpitude involving sexual offence or exhibition of immoral sexual behavior towards a student, he can terminate the services of the employee by giving him one month's notice / three months notice as the case may be. The procedure prescribed for holding enquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules does not apply to such cases.
5. All the grounds have been refuted by the respondents in their reply. The applicant filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents.
6. Respondents have filed additional reply stating that the O.A. is hit by principles of res-judicata as the applicant had already challenged the order of termination before the High Court in which the applicant also challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 81. The said writ petition was dismissed. Writ appeal also stood dismissed.
7. Counsel for the applicant submitted that there has been complete violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. The applicant was in dark as to what was the actual cause for termination of his services. Whatever little he knew were all-only from the media report and nothing came through the respondents. Under such circumstances, the decision of the respondents cannot stand judicial scrutiny. The following decisions have been relied upon by the counsel for the applicant: -
(i) 1999 (1) KLT 18, Tom v. Kerala Women's Commission.
(ii) 1994 (2) KLT 466, Alias v. State of Kerala.
(iii) 2001 (1) KLT 54, Easanan v. Bank of India.
(iv) 1992 (2) KLT 849, Prince George v. Govt. of Kerala.
(v) 1999 (3) KLT 716, Razia Greens v. State of Kerala.
(vi) 2007 (3) KLT 830, Binoy v. Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council.
(vii) 2000 (1) KLT 255, Remadevi v. Calicut University.
(viii) 1997 (2) KLT 42, Mohammed v. State of Kerala.
(ix) 1987 (2) KLT 1023, Unniraman v. Padmanabhan.
(x) C.A. No. 14525 of 1996, Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and Others.
8. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the entire procedure had been as per the regulations laid down, the constitutional validity of which had been upheld by the Courts. Further, in Avinash Nagra vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (1997) 2 SCC 534 it has been held as under: - "The teacher who has been kept in charge, bears more added higher responsibility and should be more exemplary. His/her character and conduct should be more like Rishi and as loco parents and such is the duty, responsibility and charge expected of a teacher. The question arises whether the conduct of the appellant is befitting with such higher responsibilities and as he by his conduct betrayed the trust and forfeited the faith whether he would be entitled to the full-fledged enquiry as demanded by him? The fallen standard of the appellant is the tip of the iceberg in the discipline of teaching, a noble and learned profession; it is for each teacher and collectively their body to stem the rot to sustain the faith of the society reposed in them. Enquiry is not a panacea but a nail in the coffin. It is self-inspection and correction that is supreme. It is seen that the rules wisely devised have given the power to the Director, the highest authority in the management of the institution to take decision, based on the fact- situation, whether a summary enquiry was necessary or he can dispense with the services of the appellant by giving pay in lieu of notice. Two safeguards have been provided, namely, he should record reasons for his decision not to conduct an enquiry under the rules and also post with facts the information with Minister, Human Resources Department, Government of India in that behalf."
9. Arguments were heard and documents perused. Kendriya Vidyalaya has its own Education Code and according to 81(B) where the Commissioner is satisfied after such summary enquiry as he deems proper and practicable in the circumstances of the case that any member of Kendriya Vidyalayas prima facie guilty of moral turpitude involving sexual offence or exhibition of immoral sexual behaviour towards any student, he can terminate the services of that employee by giving him one month's or three months' pay and allowances whether the guilty employee is temporary or permanent in the service of Sangathan. In such case, procedure prescribed for holding enquiry for imposing major penalty in accordance with CCS (CCandA) Rules, 1965 as applicable to the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, shall be dispensed with, provided that the Commissioner is of the opinion that it is not expedient to hold regular enquiry on account of embarrassment to student or his guardian or such other practical difficulties.
10. In fact an identical provision exists in the case of Navodaya Vidyalaya and in the case of Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti v. Babban Prasad Yadav, (2004) 13 SCC 568, the Apex Court has held as under: - "All that is required for the court is to be satisfied that the preconditions to the exercise of power under the said rule are fulfilled. These preconditions are: (1) holding of a summary enquiry, (2) a finding in such summary enquiry that the charged employee was guilty of moral turpitude; (3) the satisfaction of the Director on the basis of such summary enquiry that the charged officer was prima facie guilty; (4) the satisfaction of the Director that it was not expedient to hold an enquiry on account of serious embarrassment to be caused to the student or his guardians or such other practical difficulties and finally; (5) the recording of the reasons in writing in support of the aforesaid."
11. The above decision refers to the earlier decision by the Apex Court in the case of Avinash Nagra (supra).
12. In the case of Secy., School Committee, Thiruvalluvar Higher Secondary School v. Govt. of T.N., (2003) 5 SCC 200, the Apex Court has held as under: - "The role a teacher plays in shaping the career and future of a student needs no great emphasis.
In olden times, a teacher was considered equal to God. He is required to ensure good conduct of his pupils in addition to teaching lessons to them. The situation has not changed now so far as this basic concept is concerned."
13. Our culture and tradition keep the position of a teacher in a higher pedestal. Manu describes, "A Teacher is the image of Brahma”. Our prayer always has been, "The teacher is a Brahma, the creator, he is God Vishnu, he is God Maheshwar. He is entire universe, salutations to him." Swamy Vivekananda stated, "The true teacher is he who can immediately come down to the level of the student, transfer his soul to the student's soul and see through and understand through his mind. Such a teacher can really teach and none else" . Former President, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, whose birth anniversary is zealously celebrated as "the Teachers' Day" states, "The teacher's place in society is of vital importance. He acts as the pivot for the transmission of intellectual traditions and technical skills from generation to generation and helps to keep the lamp of civilization burning" H.G. Wells explains that the teacher is the real maker of history. "The teacher is the maker of man." said Sir John Adams Dr. S.K. Raina, Formerly Fellow IIAS Shimla explains the role of a teacher as under:- "The role of a teacher in society is both significant and valuable. It has far-reaching influence on the society he lives in and no other personality can have an influence more profound than that of a teacher. Students are deeply affected by the teacher's love and affection, his character, his competence, and his moral commitment. A popular teacher becomes a model for his students. The students try to follow their teacher in his manners, costumes, etiquette, style of conversation and his get up. He is their ideal. When we speak of good teachers it means that a teacher must be a model of faith and piety and should have a fairly good knowledge. A teacher should consider it his duty to educate and train his students and should feel responsible for it. He should feel that his students have been entrusted to him and he should avoid any breach of the trust the society has reposed in him. He should be a sociable person with his roots in the society. People should take him as their well wisher and a sincere friend who cares for their children. It should be ascertained at all cost that a candidate for this profession has a natural acumen and aptitude for teaching."
14. When such is the position and role of a teacher, if he has indulged in acts of moral turpitude, infringing in the modesty of girl students at their adolescent age, nothing is more catastrophic than the act of the teacher. The Apex Court has held that the Director has been given rightly, the power to hold summary inquiry and take a decision and normal enquiry under the CCS (CCandA) Rules are waived in such cases.
15. It may be seen from the very appeal preferred by the applicant vide Annexure 29-07-1995 that he had full information as to the entire episode and perhaps more than what was required to be informed to him. For example, he had vide para (iii) narrated how various staff members along with some others took the PTA President to the girl's house 25 KM away from the city at night.... Thus, once he has been aware of the entire episode he cannot pose innocence as to the reason for his termination.
16. The case is very much similar to the one already decided by the Apex Court i.e. the case of Nagra (supra) and Babban Prasad (supra) and as such, there is no substance in the contentions of the applicant in the O.A. The applicant had been given due opportunity as per the Education Code and though he claims that reason to approach the Tribunal at this distance of time is that the impugned order is dated 2007 only and further that he had all along been prosecuting his case in the High Court, the same also cannot wipe out the limitation as his claim relates to payment of dues right from 1996 onwards along with reinstatement. Delay could be condoned only when the case is meritorious, vide the decision by the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107, wherein the Apex Court has inter alia held as under: "When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay."
17. Considering all these factors, we find no substance in the O.A. and consequently, the O.A. is dismissed. No cost.