The main legal point established is that in cases involving serious embarrassment to students and their guardians, and prima facie guilt established through a summary inquiry, the authority may dispense with a regular inquiry before imposing a major penalty.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia , J. - Present letters patent appeal arises out of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.03.2014, whereby CWP No.8880 of 2011 filed by the appellant Anil Kumar was dismissed. The learned Single Judge as such upheld the order dated 03.05.2010 (Annexure P-2), which had been passed by the Director School Education while dispensing with the regular inquiry and following the procedure laid down under Rule 7.2 (b) & 3 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987 (for short 1987 Rules') read with Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India.

2. The reasoning as such which prevailed with the Director School Education to pass the said order was that FIR No.87 dated 24.04.2010 under Sections 451, 354, 376B IPC had been lodged at Police Station Sadar, Sirsa. A report had been received from the District Education Officer with the statements of the girls who were two sisters that the appellant Anil Kumar who was the Hindi Teacher had raped the elder one on 16.02.2010 and 19.02.2010 and outraged the modesty of the younger girl. The girls were studying in Class-X and VIII and there were allegations that pornography movies were also shown on the television and mobile phone and the fact that he had remained on casual leave on 19.04.2010 and 20.04.2010 and left early in the morning on 22.04.2010. The date when the FIR was lodged and he thereafter willfully remained absent from the school without permission and was suspended on 24.04.2010. The news items had appeared in the Press about the heinous acts of moral turpitude apart from the report and keeping in view the fact that he was a teacher who had committed such a heinous crime which not only tarnished the image of the school but had lowered the image of the State, the authority came to the conclusion that there was no option but to throw him out from service at once so that this should serve as an eye opener example. The reasoning as such given to dispense with the services of the appellant without conducting a regular inquiry was that it would further cause mental agony to the two minor girls and will bring them social stigma.

3. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the underlying principle is that some reason has to be recorded by the authority to dispense with the services of the appellant, as per the abovesaid provisions and in the absence of same, the order is not justified. It is, accordingly, submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in upholding the said order while placing reliance upon the judgment passed in 'Talwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others', 2016 (2) SCT 551, authored by one of us i.e. G.S. Sandhawalia, J. and the judgment of the Apex Court passed in 'Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others', (1991) 1 SCC 362, to argue that the impugned order and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is not justifiable and opportunity should have been given as such to the appellant to prove his innocence in the departmental proceedings.

4. Counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that the orders of the authority below and of the learned Single Judge are justified in the facts and circumstances and it is not a fit case for interference. He has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court passed in 'Udaynath Tirkey Vs. The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, CISF Headquarters and others', 2022 (1) SCT 459, to submit that it was also a case where a minor had been raped as such. The dismissal order was passed as it was not reasonably practicable to hold a disciplinary inquiry and producing the victim as a prosecutor witness in disciplinary proceedings was not feasible as it would result in further trauma of cross-examination. Therefore, he has supported the reasoning as such to submit that there is no merit in the appeal. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in 'Balbir Singh Vs. Central Administ