The Court emphasized the importance of not interfering with departmental proceedings at a premature stage and affirmed the authority to impose penalties post superannuation.

JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - This writ petition challenges an order dated 29th January, 2009 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (CAT) allowing OA No.246 of 2008 filed by the Opposite Party No.1 and directing a de novo inquiry to be held within a period of 90 days.

2. While directing notice to issue in the present petition on 14th January 2010, this Court stayed the direction of the CAT for a de novo enquiry.

3. The background facts are that Opposite Party No.1 was a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) of the Kendriya Vidyalaya School (KVS) at Baripada. A complaint was made by mother of one of the students to the Principal against the Opposite Party No.1 on 21st July, 2007 alleging that Opposite Party No.1 had misbehaved with her daughter, a student of Class-VI, who had told her mother that Opposite Party No.1 had done 'wrong things with her' during tuition hours at her residence on 11th July, 2007.

4. Consequent of the complaint, the Principal KVS, Baripada immediately called some staff members including the complainant and Opposite Party No.1 for a discussion. Opposite Party No.1 is stated to have accepted his guilt and given a written apology on 21st July, 2007 in his own hand writing. He also signed a settlement in which he was warned for the said mistake and instructed not to repeat such kind of a misdeed with any student in future. This was signed by the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 as well as other staff and the Principal of the KV, Baripada.

5. Invoking Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS (CCA) Rules), the Principal on the very same day i.e., 21st July, 2007 issued a memorandum to Opposite Party No.1 informing him that it was proposed to take action against him for the misbehavior towards the girl student during tuition hour at her residence. Opposite Party No.1 was given an opportunity to make a representation. On 28th July, 2007, the Opposite Party No.1replied denying the charges in toto. The victim girl made a statement on 22nd August, 2007 before the Teachers' Committee and stood by her complaint of his misbehavior with her.

6. The Inquiry Officer issued another letter on 22nd August, 2007 requiring the Opposite Party No.1 to present himself before the Inquiry Committee on 23rd August, 2007 at 12 noon. The victim girl as well as the complainant, i.e., the mother of the victim girl, made statements before the Inquiry Committee on 26th November, 2007 standing by their earlier statements.

7. On 3rd December, 2007, the Education Officer issued a notice to Opposite Party No.1 to which the Opposite Party No.1 replied on 11th December, 2007. On 7th March, 2008, the Assistant Commissioner, who is an Ad hoc Disciplinary Authority for KVS, Bhubaneswar placed Opposite Party No.1 under suspension in terms of Rule-10(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules stating that a disciplinary proceeding against him was contemplated.

8. At that stage, the Opposite Party No.1 filed on 31st May, 2008 OA No. 246 of 2008 challenging the initiation of the departmental proceedings. In the meanwhile, Opposite Party No.1 was issued a memorandum of charges dated 28th May, 2008 asking him to show cause why his services should not be terminated under Article 81(B) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas (Code) failing which it would be presumed that he had nothing to say and would be proceeded ex parte. On 19th August, 2008, the CAT stayed further proceedings against Opposite Party No.1.

9. The CAT held as follows in the impugned order:

'(i) Sufficient opportunity was not granted to Opposite Party No.1 about constitution of a committee by the Inquiry Officer to effectively place his defence;

(ii) Reading Articles 59(14) and 81(B) of the Code, the KVS Authorities were justified in issuing the memorandum dated 28th May, 2008. The indication of the Article 81(B) of the Code was also upheld;

(iii) None of the documents and evidence adduced before the Principal by the Committee co