IMPORTANT POINT
When the conduct of a post graduate teacher is unbecoming of a teacher much less a loco parentis and, therefore the order of termination of his services by dispensing with regular enquiry under the rules and denial of cross-examination are legal and not vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(i) Service Law - C.C.S. (C.C.O.) Rules, 1965-Natural Justice-Principle of audi alteram partem-Appellant appointed as a post graduate teacher in a co-educational institution-Charge of his improper conduct with a girl student-Appellant s service terminated in terms of his letter of appointment-Order challenged-Whether appellant is entitled to a full-fledged enquiry and opportunity to cross-examine girl students who gave statements against him?-(No)-Whether order terminating services of appellant is in violation of Rules or principles of natural justice?-(No)-Conduct of appellant being unbecoming of a teacher-Dispensing with regular enquiry under the rules and denial of cross examination are legal and not vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice.
       Held : The fallen standard of the appellant is an ice berg 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 pannacea but a nail on 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, a 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. It is seen from the record that the appellant was given a warning of his sexual advances towards a girl student but he did not correct himself and mend his conduct. He went to the girl hostel at 10 p.m. in the night and asked the Hostel helper, Bharat Singh to misguide the girl by telling her that Bio-Chemistry Madam was calling her; believing the statement, she came out of the hostel. It is the admitted position that she was an active participant in cultural activities. Taking advantage thereof, he misused his position and adopted sexual advances towards her. When she ran away from his presence, he persued her to the room where she locked herself inside; he banged the door. When he was informed by her room mates that she was asleep, he rebuked them and took the torch from the room and went away. He admitted his going there and admitted his meeting with the girl but he had given a false explanation which was not found acceptable to an Inquiry Officer, namely, Asstt. Director. after conducting the enquiry, he submitted the report to the Director and the Director examined the report and found him to be not worthy to be a teacher in the institution. The Director has correctly taken the decision not to conduct any enquiry exposing the students and modesty of the girl and to terminate the services of the appellant by giving one month s salary and allowances in lieu of notice as he is a temporary employee under probation. In the circumstances, it is very hazardous to expose the young girls for torduous process of cross-examination. Their statements were supplied to the appellant and he was given an opportunity to controvert the correctness thereof. In view of his admission that he went to the room in the night, though he shifted the timings from 10 p.m. to 8 p.m. which was found not acceptable to the respondents and that he took the torch from the room, do indicate that he went to the room. The misguiding statement sent through Bharat Singh, the hostel peon, was corroborated by the statements of the students; but for the misstatement, obviously the girl would not have gone out from the room. Under those circumstances, the conduct of the appellant is unbecoming of a teacher much less a loco parentis and, therefore, dispensing with regular enquiry under the rules and denial of cross-examination are legal and not vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice. (Para 11)
       (ii) Constitution of India-Articles 45 and 51A-Fundamental Duties-Need for education-Place of teacher in our society.
       Held : This Court has held that right to education is a Fundamental Right and the State is required to organise education through its agencies or private institutions in accordance with the law and the regulations or the scheme. As laid down by this Court, it is the duty of the State to provide compulsory primary education freely; secondary education and the university education according to the appropriate statutes and the schemes. The Union of India had adopted the Novodaya Vidyalaya Scheme to impart discipline and higher learning upto the stage of secondary education. Article 51A in Chapter IVA of the Fundamental Duties envisages that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem. The citizen should cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom; to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. The citizens should, as a duty, defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so; to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities. The citizen, as a duty, should renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women; value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture; protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures. Every citizen should develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform; safeguard public property and abjure violence; strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. These ideals should be nurtured and imbibed by imparting to the receptive minds of the children from their childhood. (Para 5)
       The State has taken care of service conditions of the teacher and he owes dual fundamental duties to himself and to the society. As a member of the noble teaching profession and a citizen of India he should always be willing, self-disciplined, dedicated with integrity to remain ever a learner of knowledge, intelligently to articulate and communicate and imbibe in his students, as social duty, to impart education, to bring them up with discipline, inculcate to adjure violence and to develop scientific temper with a spirit of enquiry and reform constantly to rise to higher levels in any walk of life nurturing Constitutional ideals enshrined in Article 51A so as to make the students responsible citizens of the country. Thus the teacher either individually or collectively as a community of teachers, should regenerate this dedication with a bent of spiritualism in broader perspective of the Constitutionalism with secular ideologies enshrined in the Constitution as an arm of the State to establish egalitarian social order under the rule of law. Therefore, when the society has given such a pedestal, the conduct, a character, ability and disposition of a teacher should be to transform the student into a disciplined citizen, inquisitive of learn, intellectual to pursue in any walk of life with dedication, discipline ad devotion with an inquiring mind but not with blind customary beliefs. The education that is imparted by the teacher determines the 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 for the efficiency of the education system as a pillar of built democratic institutions and to sustain them in their later years of life as a responsible citizen in different responsibilities. Without a dedicated and disciplined teacher, even the best of education, system is bound to fail. It is, therefore, the duty of the teacher to take such care of the pupils as a careful parent would take of its children and the ordinary principles of vicarious liability would apply where negligence is that of a teacher. The age of the pupil and the nature of the activity in which he takes part, are material factors determining the degree and supervision demanded by a teacher. (Para 10)
       (iii) Res Judicata-Writ petition-Withdrawal without permission of Court with liberty to file second writ petition-Second writ petition held not maintainable. (Para 12)

ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh made on January 9, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 56/96.

3. The appellant was appointed as a post-graduate teacher on January 28, 1994. Initially he worked at Patiala but was transferred to Kinnaur. The Respondent-institution is a co-educational institution. The appellant s service was terminated in terms of his letter of appointment giving salary in lieu of notice on the ground of his improper conduct with a girl student. When he filed writ petition, the High Court, after consideration of the record, dismissed the same. When the petition had come up for admission and the counsel insisted upon an enquiry to be conducted against the alleged misconduct, by Order dated March 13, 1996, we directed the management to issue show cause notice to the petitioner, conduct an enquiry and submit the report within a specified time which was subsequently extended. In furtherance thereof, show cause notice dated May 2, 1996, together with the statements of the girl, her room-mates and the attender, Bharat Singh, were supplied to the petitioner. After receipt of the explanation submitted by the appellant and consideration of the entire record, they have drawn up a report and submitted the same to this Court with the finding that the appellant is guilty of moral turpitude involving exhibition of immoral sexual behaviour towards a girl student in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kinnaur. On consideration of the report and the record we have heard the counsel on both sides.

4. It is contended for the appellant that the charges levelled against him impinge upon his character, conduct and career. Therefore, he should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the girl student and her colleagues who have given their statements and to had himself examined. The procedure adopted, therefore, is in violation of the settled legal principles and principle of audi alterem partem. It is accordingly vitiated by manifest error of law warranting interference. Shri Arun Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that the matter requires remittance to the disciplinary authority for conducting de novo enquiry and give an opportunity to establish appellant s innocence. It is also contended that since the appellant had filed the writ petition initially which was dismissed as withdrawn, the second writ petition cannot be dismissed on the principle of constructive res judicata. The view of the High Court, therefore, was vitiated by serious errors of law. The learned counsel for the respondents resisted the contention.

5. The first question that arises for consideration is: whether the dismissal of the appellant in terms of his letter of appointment is vitiated by any error of law and whether he is entitled to a full-fledged enquiry and opportunity to cross-examine the girl students who have gave the statements against the appellant ? The second question is: whether the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition under the impugned Order dated January 9, 1996? In disputably, the provisions of C.C.S. (C.C.O.) Rules, 1965 of the Government of India would be applicable to the employees of Navodaya Vidyalaya. The respondent is running nation-wide co-educational specialised and prestigious schools in which 1/3rd of the students are girls. With a view to ensure safety and security to the girl students, to protect their modesty and prevent their unnecessary exposer at an enquiry in relation to the conduct of a teacher resulting in sexual harassment of the girl student etc. involving misconduct or moral turpitude, resolution prescribing special summary procedure was proposed and published by notification dated December 23, 1993, after due approval of the Executives of the respondent-Samiti. The Minister of Human Resources and Development, Government of India is its Chairman. The notification postulates t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1571

Cases Referred (1)