SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1789

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD Dated: This the 21st day of December 2018 Original Application No. 330/ 00282 of 2008 Hon’ble Mr. Gokul Chandra Pati, Member – A Hon’ble Mr. Rakesh Sagar Jain, Member - J Smt. Sushila Devi, W/ o late R.D. Vidyarathi, R/ o 526 Dharampur (Puliya) Dhurehta, District Firozabad.

........ . .Applicant V E R S U S

1. Joint Commissioner (Admn.) K.V.S. Head Quarter, New Delhi.

2. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.

3. Joint Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.

4. Assistant Commissioner, KVS, RO, Patna.

5. Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, N.T.P.C. Korba (C.G.), 6. Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Deoria.

. . . Respondents Advocate for the applicant: Shri Vinod Kumar Advocate for the respondents: Shri N.P.Singh

O R D E R

By Hon’ble Mr. Gokul Chandra Pati, Member – A This Original Application (in short OA) has been filed under section

19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act with prayer for the following reliefs:-

“i. set aside the Order dated 14.12.07 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Order dated 30.07.07 passed by respondent No. 3, the Joint Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to secure ends of justice.

ii. issue an Order or direction to the respondents to reinstate the Applicant as usual prior to the removal from service.

iii. issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

iv. and award cost of the application in favour of the applicant.”

2. The OA was initially filed by the applicant’s husband and after his death during pendency of the OA, the applicant’s name has been substituted as his legal heir. The applicant’s husband, while working as Vice Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya NTPC Korba (in short KV), faced with a complaint of sexual harassment by one primary school teacher in KV Km. Nidhi Singh (referred hereinafter as ‘complainant’). After a preliminary inquiry, the disciplinary authority (respondent no. 1) constituted a three member committee to inquire into the matter. It is alleged in the OA that a copy of the said complaint was not supplied to the applicant’s husband before the inquiry in spite of his requests on 24.08.2005 (Annexure No. I) and 09.08.2005 (Annexure No. I-A). Copy of the complaint dated 29.04.2004 (Annexure No. II) of the complainant was finally served upon the applicant alongwith the committee’s inquiry report dated 30.8.2005. It is further stated in the OA that as per the statement of the complainant, the alleged incident took place on 27.04.2004, but the complainant complained on 29.04.2004 and as such, it appears that the complaint was concocted after

02 days of the alleged incident.

3. It is stated in OA that Mr. J.P.N. Dwivedi, Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya COD, Jabalpur, Smt. Manjulata, Principal, Saint Xavier School, Kroba and Miss S.K. Sanhotra, Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur were nominated as members of the inquiry committee constituted by the disciplinary authority (respondent no. 1) for inquiry into the complaint of sexual harassment against the applicant’s husband. The inquiry committee recorded the statement of 11 teaching staff of Kendriya Vidyalaya, N.T.P.C. Korba including the complainant and the applicant’s husband and submitted its report dated 30.08.2005 (Annexure No. III) holding that there has been some moral aberration on the part of the applicant’s husband towards the complainant. According to the OA, the committee’s report is ambiguous about its findings on the complaint against the applicant’s husband.

4. It is further stated in the OA that after receipt of the complaint, the applicant’s husband was transferred on 1.7.2004 to a different station as a punishment, where he joined in compliance of the transfer order. He was again transferred to another station after about 2 months, which was also complied by the applicant’s husband. Thereafter, he was suspended on 27.1.2005 and after receipt of the inquiry report on 30.8.2005, the matter was reviewed and the suspension order was revoked and the applicant’s husband was reinstated in service vide order dated 31.1.2006 and he joined on 2.2.2006 in his post at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Deoria as Vice Principal.

5. It is further averred in the OA that, when some of his juniors were promoted to the post of Principal ignoring the case of the applicant, he submitted representation on 20.9.2006 and then filed an application under RTI Act on this issue on 3.11.2006. It is stated in para 4.26 of the OA that the respondents, being aggrieved by his representations, issued the memorandum dated 13.11.2006 (Annexure No. IV) to the applicant’s husband for showing cause as to why he will not be removed fro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top