The judgment establishes the importance of minimum compliance with the principle of natural justice in cases of complaints of sexual harassment by girl students against a male teacher, and highlights the requirement to confront the accused with the contents of the complaints while preserving the anonymity of the complainants.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Record perused.

3. Respondent was a part time vocational teacher (Stenography) appointed by the Directorate of Education and was posted at Updesh Kaur Sarvodaya Kanya vidyalaya, Daryapur Kalan. His services were terminated vide order dated December 17, 2009, which reads as under:-

“To,

Shri Naresh Kataria,

Part-time Vocational teacher,

(Stenography, English),

S/o Sh.Pokar Das,

H.No.-1072, V&P.O.-Bawana,

Delhi- 110 039.

Sir,

I am directed to convey that the competent authority has terminated your part-time appointment on contingent basis in Vocational Education Branch with immediate effect.

Sd/

(ABHA JOSHI)

Dy. Director of Education (Voc.)”

4. The order has been quashed by the Tribunal.

5. The reasoning of the Tribunal is in para 10 of the opinion of the Tribunal, which reads as under;-

“10. In our considered opinion, even if the appellant is a part time teacher, his services can be terminated only after duly complying with the basic requirements of the principles of natural justice as laid down by the Apex Court in Babban Prasad Yadav’s case (supra) and Rathin Pal’s case (supra). The applicant’s contention is that it was due to the enmity of the Princip0al of the school with him, the allegations of sexual harassment of the girl students was made against him. His aforesaid contention is fortified by the fact that the Principal of the school has already made up her mind to terminate his services as seen from her Annexure A-2 letter dated 25.11.2009. She has stated clearly in the said letter that his services were no more required in the school and he has been asked to contact the Dy. Director of Education (Vocational). The Principal has not fixed any date or time limit for the applicant to meet the Dy. Director of Education (Vocational). After two days, i.e. 27.11.2009, the Principal has issued the relieving order of the applicant referring to her earlier letter dated 25.11.2009. The said letter says that the applicant was relieved from his duty from the school with immediate effect. But he was again asked to contact the Dy. Director of Education (Vocational) immediately. On the very same date, the Dy. Director of Education (Vocational) issued him a show cause notice stating that he did not report to him on 26.11.2009 or on 27.11.2009. He was also given time of 24 hours to explain as to why his services should not be terminated with immediate effect. However, it is seen from the record that on 9.11.2009 he was given the last opportunity to appear before Dy. Director of Education (Vocational) on 11.11.2009. He appeared before the Dy. Director of Education (Vocational) on 15.11.2009 and the Dy. Director of Education (Vocational) asked him 26 questions. Applicant sought a copy of the statements made during enquiry held by the Dy. Director of Education (Vocational). Thereafter nothing more had happened. By letter dated 28.11.2009, the applicant informed the Dy. Director of Education (Vocational) that he could not report to him on 26.11.2009 or 27.11.2009 as he was down with fever. He has also enclosed a medical certificate. He sought further time to report to him on 30.11.2009. Accordingly, he presented himself before Dy. Director of Education (Vocational) on 30.11.2009. Again vide another show cause notice dated 7.12.2009, the Dy. Director of Education again asked the applicant to show cause within 24 hours as to why his service should not be terminated with immediate effect. No reason for his proposed termination from service was mentioned in the show cause notice. It is not understood as to how the applicant could make any representation against the proposed termination of service, where he was informed about the reasons for doing so. Again vide letter dated 9.12.2009, the applicant was asked to appear before the Dy. Director of Education (Vocational) on 11.12.2009. Later, vide the impugned order dated 17.12.2009 Dy. Director of Education (Voc