Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Termination of Kendriya Vidyalaya Teacher for 'Immoral' Sexual Harassment of Student

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a former Kendriya Vidyalaya teacher, upholding his termination from service for the sexual harassment of a Class VI student. A division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Ravi Chirania held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly and the punishment of termination was justified for such a "shameful" and "immoral" act.

Background of the Case

The case involves Yatendra Kumar Nagori, a Primary Teacher appointed in the Kendriya Vidyala Sangthan (KVS) in 1990. In February 2015, a complaint of "immoral sexual harassment and misbehavior" was lodged against him concerning a female student.

Following the complaint, KVS constituted a preliminary inquiry committee which confirmed the allegations. Subsequently, a summary inquiry also found a prima facie case against the petitioner. After being served a show-cause notice under Article 81(B) of the Education Code and considering his reply, the disciplinary authority terminated Nagori's services on October 16, 2015.

Nagori challenged this termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jaipur, which dismissed his application on August 28, 2024. The present writ petition was filed in the High Court against the CAT's order.

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner's counsel vehemently argued that his client was falsely implicated. The key contentions were: - The complaint was fabricated at the behest of a fellow teacher, Ms. Sadhana, with whom the petitioner had a dispute over private tuitions.

- There were "stark contradictions" in the two statements recorded from the victim child.

- The services were terminated using a "short-circuit method" without a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and his written explanation was not considered objectively.

- The mandatory procedure under Article 81(B) of the Education Code was not followed.

High Court's Rationale and Observations

The High Court, after reviewing the records, delivered a scathing indictment of the petitioner's conduct and rejected all his arguments. The bench emphasized the gravity of the offense, especially given the teacher's position of trust.

> "The petitioner, who is a teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya, has not only committed a shameful act but has also engaged in immoral conduct. Therefore, at the very outset, no sympathy can be extended to such a person."

The court found no reason to disbelieve the victim's statement, dismissing the theory of false implication as an "afterthought." It noted that the victim had no enmity with the petitioner and that it was "hard to believe that Ms. Sadhana will take the services of a small child to settle her personal scores." The court also highlighted that eight other students had deposed before the committee, corroborating the incident.

On the procedural aspects, the bench concluded that the principles of natural justice were duly complied with.

> "We further note that a reasonable opportunity to defend the case was granted to the petitioner and his representation was duly considered by the competent authority. The respondents have duly complied with the mandate of Article 81(B) of the Education Code..."

The court held that the termination order was "elaborate and speaking one" and the punishment was "justified and is commensurate with the offense alleged." It further stated that the victim's statement alone was sufficient to establish the allegations.

Final Verdict and Admonition

The High Court found no merit in the writ petition and upheld the CAT's order and the 2015 termination order.

In a concluding note, the bench pointed out a procedural lapse by the lower tribunal. It observed that the CAT's order had mentioned the name of the minor victim, which is contrary to Supreme Court guidelines. The court directed that "all Presiding Officers must refrain from mentioning the names of minor children in such matters while passing orders or judgments."