The court upheld the termination of a teacher for immoral conduct, emphasizing the authority of disciplinary bodies to act within procedural bounds.

O R D E R 

By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM:-

By means of the instant original application filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the applicant has prayed for setting aside the orders dated 18.11.2011 (Annexure A-1) and 20.03.2012 (Annexure A-2). Prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, in the year 2009, some girl students of Class-VII(B) of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dhana made a verbal complaint against the applicant who was posted as T.G.T (English) regarding immoral behaviour towards them and based upon the aforesaid complaint, and as per the report submitted by Smt. P.B.S. Usha, Education Officer, K.V.S. Regional Office, Jabalpur ,the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, Sagar was directed to hold a preliminary enquiry vide letter dated 02.09.2009 by constituting a Committee, who submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority establishing the charges proved. Thereafter, the respondents issued show-cause notice dated 02.08.2011 intending to terminate the services of the applicant (Annexure A-4) to which the applicant submitted a detailed reply on 20.09.2011 (Annexure A5) but without considering the reply, by Page 2 of 15 ANAND 2025.05.02 exercising the power under Article 81(b) of the Education Code, the competent authority i.e. respondent no. 2 terminated the services of the applicant vide order dated 18.11.2011 (Annexure A-1). Then the applicant filed a detailed Appeal and the same as also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 20.03.2012 (Annexure A-2).

3. The applicant contended that the respondents on their whims and fancies, have conducted the enquiry and he was punished without giving proper opportunity of hearing to defend his case and by conjectures and surmises, the entire thing has been proved against him. The applicant further contended that when he was on leave for almost a month in July 2009 due to serious ill health of his wife; utilizing the aforesaid period, a fake complaint against him was managed by one of the colleague teacher viz. Smt. Sarita Singh, PGT (Maths), the then In- charge Principal and one Shri S.C. Jain, PGT (Hindi), Smt. Pratibha Xess, PGT (Social Studies) and Ku. Richa Jain, contractual Computer Instructor of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dhana to spoil his career. Further, the respondents have dealt the entire issue without following the cardinal principle of fair play during the enquiry as no initial report was furnished to the applicant. The applicant further contended that during the enquiry, contradictory reports dated 05.04.2011 and 04.07.2011 were prepared and in the report dated 05.04.2011, the Enquiry Committee has Page 3 of 15 ANAND 2025.05.02 reported that the applicant has given his oral statement and has not submitted any written statement while as per the Enquiry Committee meeting report dated 04.07.2011, the Committee has admitted the applicant's request for giving a written statement but the same was not accepted.

4. The applicant further contended that initially one preliminary enquiry was held on 17.08.2009 followed by another summary enquiry on 30.11.2009 & 01.12.2009. Thereafter again a preliminary enquiry was conducted on 18.08.2010 followed by another preliminary enquiry dated 26.08.2010. Thereafter again after lapse of more than six months a preliminary enquiry was held on 17.03.2011 followed by another summary enquiry on 04.04.2011 and 05.04.2011 and in most of the preliminary/summary enquiries, applicant has not been heard or the reports of most of the aforesaid enquiries have not been provided to him.

5. Per contra, the respondents have filed reply stating th