ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. APPELLANT 1 IS AN EDUCATIONAL ORGANISATION AND HAS BEEN REGISTERED AS A SOCIETY UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT. RESPONDENT 1 (REFERRED TO HEREAFTER AS "THE RESPONDENT") WAS EMPLOYED AS A TEACHER BY THE SOCIETY. ON 8-2-2001 THE SERVICES OF THE RESPONDENT WERE TERMINATED. THE ORDER OF TERMINATION RECORDS THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS PRIMA FACIE FOUND GUILTY OF MORAL TURPITUDE BECAUSE HE HAD INDULGED IN IMMORAL CONDUCT WITH ONE OF THE STUDENTS OF THE SCHOOL BY WRITING UNDESIRABLE LETTERS/REMARKS TO HER. IT IS FURTHER RECORDED THAT THE DIRECTOR WHILE ISSUING THE ORDER OF TERMINATION, WAS SATISFIED THAT THE PROCEDURE OF HOLDING A REGULAR DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY UNDER THE CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1965 WAS NOT EXPEDIENT, AS THE SAME MAY CAUSE SERIOUS EMBARRASSMENT TO THE GIRL STUDENT AND HER PARENTS. A FULL ENQUIRY WAS THEREFORE DISPENSED WITH. FINALLY, THE ORDER STATED THAT THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD ESTABLISHED THE RESPONDENTS GUILT AND THAT HIS CONTINUATION IN A RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTION, LIKE THE APPELLANT SOCIETY, WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE GIRL STUDENTS AND THE INSTITUTION ITSELF. THE RESPONDENT WAS GIVEN THREE MONTHS PAY AND ALLOWANCES IN LIEU OF NOTICE UNDER THE RULES IN TERMS OF NOTIFICATION NO. F. 14-2/93VVS(VIG) DATED 20-12-1993.

3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF TERMINATION THE RESPONDENT APPROACHED THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE RESPONDENTS CASE. THE HIGH COURT, HOWEVER, REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TERMINATION ON A WRIT APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. THE HIGH COURT, HOWEVER, GAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT SOCIETY TO HOLD A REGULAR ENQUIRY INTO THE CHARGES LEVELLED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT.

4. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE RULES RELATING TO THE DISPENSATION OF ENQUIRY HAD BEEN NOTIFIED ON 20-12-1993. THESE RULES SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED:

"WHENEVER THE DIRECTOR IS SATISFIED, AFTER SUCH SUMMARY ENQUIRY AS HE DEEMS PROPER AND PRACTICABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THAT ANY MEMBER OF NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA IS 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 MONTHS OR THREE MONTHS PAY AND ALLOWANCES DEPENDING UPON WHETHER THE GUILTY EMPLOYEE IS TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT IN THE SERVICES OF THE SAMITI. IN SUCH CASES, THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED FOR HOLDING ENQUIRY FOR IMPOSING MAJOR PENALTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CCS (CCA) RULES, 1965, AS APPLICABLE TO THE EMPLOYEES OF NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI, SHALL BE DISPENSED WITH, PROVIDED, THAT THE DIRECTOR IS OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS NOT EXPEDIENT TO HOLD REGULAR ENQUIRY ON ACCOUNT OF SERIOUS EMBARRASSMENT TO THE STUDENT OR HIS GUARDIANS OR SUCH OTHER PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. THE DIRECTOR SHALL RECORD IN WRITING THE REASONS UNDER WHICH IT IS NOT REASONABLY PRACTICABLE TO HOLD SUCH ENQUIRY AND HE SHALL KEEP THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SAMITI INFORMED OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO SUCH TERMINATION OF SERVICES."

5. THE APPELLANTS ARGUMENT IS THAT THE RULE QUOTED ABOVE SPECIFICALLY ENTITLED THE DIRECTOR, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS BEING FULFILLED UNDER THE RULE, TO DISPENSE WITH THE ENQUIRY AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS CHARGED WITH OFFENCES OF MORAL TURPITUDE, INCLUDING IMMORAL BEHAVIOUR. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN AVINASH NAGRA V. NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITIL WHERE THIS COURT IN A SIMILAR SITUATION UPHELD THE EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE DIRECTOR IN DISPENSING WITH A FULL-SCALE ENQUIRY. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, A PRIMA FACIE FINDING HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT BY THE DIRECTOR ON THE BASIS OF AN ENQUIRY HELD BY A COMMITTEE SET UP FOR THE PURPOSE. THE COMMITTEE GAVE A REPORT AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE RESPONDENT AND AFTER CONSIDERING HIS DEFENCE IN THE MATTER. IT WAS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT THAT THE DIRECTOR ARRIVED AT THE PRIMA