2019 Supreme(SC) 413

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Indira Banerjee, JJ.
THE SECRETARY, LUCY SEQUEIRA TRUST AND ANOTHER – Appellants
Versus
KAILASH RAMESH TANDEL AND OTHERS – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3456 of 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 28314 of 2017)
Decided on : 08-04-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Sexual harassment of girl students by school Teacher is a very serious matter and calls for stern action.
(2) Departmental proceeding and proceedings in a criminal court are completely different.

Headnote:(A) Service Law – Termination – From post of Assistant Teacher – Allegation of objectionable behavior with adolescent girl students in school – Departmental proceeding and proceedings in a criminal court are completely different – Purpose is different, standard of proof is different and approach is also different – Initiation of process in a departmental proceeding, specially on charges in present matter, can never be said to be amounting to contempt of court even if criminal proceedings were pending. (Para 14)

       (B) Service Law – Termination – From post of Assistant Teacher – Allegation of objectionable behavior with adolescent girl students in school – Direction for reinstatement in service for the purpose of conducting inquiry – Prima facie, allegations made in FIR under Section 354(a) of IPC read with Section 9(f), 10 and 11 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were found sustainable in police investigation – Crime was registered against respondent pursuant to complaints made by many students – Conclusion by Convener that charges were sensitive and that case called for strict action, was absolutely correct – On the other hand, reports of Nominee of Respondent No.1 and State Awardee Teacher not only show complete lack of sensitivity but they also got bogged down unnecessarily by a question whether any action on their part would amount to contempt of court or not – Allegations made against Respondent No.1 were of such level and dimension that an immediate action on departmental front was required to be undertaken and such action by its very nature had to be completely independent – Whether any criminal trial was pending or not would not be having any bearing on pending issue before Inquiry Committee – Approach of Nominee of Respondent No.1 and of State Awardee Teacher was completely wrong and unsustainable. (Paras 14, 16 and 17)

       (C) Service Law – Termination – From post of Assistant Teacher – Allegation of objectionable behavior with adolescent girl students in school – Direction for reinstatement in service for the purpose of conducting inquiry – Management had not taken any hasty action in initiating proceedings against Respondent No.1 – Appellant had intimated the Department soon after lodging of first complaint by girl students with Police – Order of suspension and initiation of inquiry was preceded by a resolution passed by School Committee of Appellant – If Nominee of Respondent No.1 and State Awardee Teacher had not given any final decision with clarity, since in their view it would have amounted to contempt of court, Appellant was justified in relying upon conclusions drawn by Convener of Inquiry Committee and then pass order of termination – Approach adopted by Management was not only fair and transparent but was in keeping with what is expected of the Management where allegations of sexual harassment of adolescent girls are in issue – Tribunal, as well as High Court failed to appreciate the matter in correct perspective – They ought to have accepted the decision taken by Management – Impugned decisions set aside and order of termination affirmed. [Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981; Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act, 1977] (Paras 14, 16 and 17)

       Facts of Case:

       Termination from post of school teacher. There were two FIRs filed pursuant to reporting that Respondent No.1 was guilty of objectionable behavior with adolescent girl students in school. In both these FIRs investigation was undertaken and charge-sheets stand filed. Prima facie, allegations made in FIR were found sustainable in police investigation and Respondent No.1 is presently of having committed said offences. tribunal while remitting the matter, directed reinstatement of Respondent No.1, notionally for the purpose of conducting inquiry. High Court dismissed Writ Petition and upheld order passed by Tribunal.

       Findings of Court:

       Management had not taken any hasty action in initiating proceedings against Respondent No.1. Appellant had intimated Department soon after lodging of first complaint by girl students with police. Tribunal, as well as High Court failed to appreciate the matter in correct perspective. They ought to have accepted the decision taken by Management.

       Result : Appeal allowed.