The court upheld that reasonable procedural safeguards were followed in terminating employment for serious allegations of misconduct.

BY THE COURT

: (Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur)

1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28.8.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the learned tribunal) whereby the learned tribunal has rejected the original application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.10.2015 passed by the disciplinary authority whereby the petitioner has been terminated from the services.

2. The facts in nut shell are that initially the petitioner came to be appointed as Primary Teacher in the respondent – Kendriya Vidyala Sangthan, Jaipur Region vide appointment order dated 15.1.1990. On 6.2.2015, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner regarding immoral sexual harassment and misbehavior with a child ‘A’. Consequently, vide order dated 7.2.2015, a committee was constituted to inquire into the allegations against the petitioner. The committee submitted its report on 11.02.2015 confirming the allegations levelled in the complaint. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended on 12.02.2015. After considering the preliminary inquiry report, the Deputy Commissioner, KVS, Regional Office, Ahmedabad constituted a summary inquiry committee vide order dated 24.2.2015, which gave its report on 18.3.2015 holding that prima facie, the petitioner was found to be involved in immoral behaviour with the child. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with the show cause notice dated 4.5.2015 alongwith copy of charges, facts in support of the charges together with the statements recorded in the preliminary inquiry, copy of the report of the preliminary inquiry and the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to submit his explanation within a period of 15 days, failing which it was communicated that if he has nothing to say then the orders will be passed against him ex-parte under the provisions of Article 81(B) of the Education Code. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.10.2015, the disciplinary authority finding that the petitioner is guilty of exhibition of immoral sexual behaviour towards the child, terminated the services of the petitioner with immediate effect. The petitioner then challenged the termination order dated 16.10.2015 by way of filing the original application before the learned tribunal. However, the learned tribunal finding that both the preliminary inquiry as well as the summary inquiry were conducted in detail and concluded after following the complete procedure, dismissed the original application vide order dated 28.8.2024. Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as no incident as alleged in the complaint had ever been happened and there is no involvement of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the entire story is false and concocted for the reason that the petitioner objected to the private tuition being undertaken by one school teacher viz. Smt. Sadhana. Therefore, this complaint has been managed and filed by the parents of the student studying in the school at the behest of Ms. Sadhana. Learned counsel submits that the statements of child ‘A’ has been recorded two times and in both the statements, there is stark contradictions, which cannot be relied upon by any prudent man. Even the statements of the other students have been recorded by the inquiry committee while exerting pressure upon t