The judgment established the importance of maintaining a harassment-free environment in educational institutions and upheld the applicability of the Central Civil Services Rules and the Education Code in cases of sexual misconduct.

B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. The respondent Sri Sujit Suklabaidya was working as a peon in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Lekhapani, Silchar, Assam. The School was situated in Army Cantonment. In the last week of February 2002, the Joint Commissioner (Acad.) received an anonymous telephonic message that few male staff of the School were misbehaving with girl students. Accordingly, the Joint Commissioner directed the principal of the School to make an enquiry. Accordingly the Principal of the school constituted a Committee of 3 (three) teachers to ascertain the truth in the allegation. Accordingly the Committee examined 13 girl students on 27.2.2002 of classes VII, VIII and IX and report was submitted to the School Authority on the same date. On that day few girls were not available in the school. Hence, three more such girl students were interviewed on the next date and another report was submitted to the principal of the School on 2.3.2002. After these two preliminary reports one formal Committee consisting of the Chairman of the School, namely, Major Rohitesh Kumar and School Teachers Mr. N.P. Singh and Mrs. S.G. Sood was constituted. This Committee recorded a statement of as many as 17 persons including the victim girls, the principle and others. After the enquiry the Committee submitted its findings and opinion holding that few students had implicated School teachers Mr. B.N. Paul, Mr. V.K. Yadav and two peons, namely, Mr. Sugreev Kewat and Mr. Sujit Suklabaidya. The aforesaid findings were accepted by the Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Lekhapani and recommended disciplinary action against the teachers and employees of the School for indulging and misconduct with girl students vide its order dated 4.3.2002. The enquiry reports dated 2.3.2002, 3.3.2002 and 5.3.2002 (sic) are marked as Annexure-1 to 3 in the writ petition.

2. Having found the teachers and staff of the School involving misconduct, show cause notices were issued to the indicted persons to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them. Notice to the present respondent was issued on 2.3.2002 to which the respondent replied on 4.3.2002. After perusing all the evidence, the Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan terminated the services of the respondent Sri Sujit Suklabaidya vide order No. F.10-7/2002/KVS (VIG) dated 23.5.2002. It may be mentioned here that the Commissioner had dispensed with exhaustive procedure for disciplinary proceeding laid down under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 in exercise of his powers conferred under Article 8Kb) of the Education Code.

3. On receipt of the termination order dated 23.5.2002 the respondent prayed for review of the said order but his prayer was turned down on 15.5.2002. Thereafter, the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, (the Tribunal' in brief). This appeal was registered as Original Application No. 357 of 2002. The learned Tribunal, after hearing both the parties and on perusal of records set aside the order of termination dated 23.5.2002 and directed the School authority to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits. Being aggrieved with this order of reinstatement, the Union of India and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan has preferred this writ petition under Article 246 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari and other appropriate direction.

4. We have heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Sri R.K. Dutta appeared for the sole respondent. During the hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellants also furnished copies of the statements of the girl students for perusal of this court.

5. As noted earlier the enquiry was held in a summary procedure under Article 8Kb) in Chapter 8 of the Education Code. The relevant provision is extracted below:

(b) Termination of Services of an Employee Found Guilty of Immoral Behaviour towards Stude