Service Law – Termination – Respondent No.1 appointed as Assistant Teacher in school run by the Appellant – Warning issued to respondent no.1 for his objectionable behavior with adolescent girl students in the school – Inquiry Committee constituted consisting of the Convenor, Nominee of the appellant, Nominee of respondent no.1 and a State Awardee Teacher– Respondent no.1 terminated from service – School Tribunal, Mumbai Region, Mumbai partly allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.1, remitted the matter for fresh consideration and also directed reinstatement of respondent no.1, notionally for the purpose of conducting the inquiry – Challenged by the appellant – Dismissed – On appeal, held: Two FIRs were filed pursuant to reporting that respondent no.1 was guilty of objectionable behavior with adolescent girl students in the school – In both the FIRs the charge-sheets stand filed – Prima facie, the allegations made in the FIR were found sustainable in police investigation and respondent no.1 is presently accused of having committed said offences – Conclusion by the Convener in the report that the charges were sensitive and that the case called for strict action, was absolutely correct – Reports of the Nominee of respondent no.1 and the State Awardee Teacher not only show complete lack of sensitivity but they also unnecessarily got bogged down by question whether any action on their part would amount to contempt of court (pending criminal proceedings) or not – Departmental proceeding and proceedings in criminal court are completely different – Allegations made against respondent no.1 were of such level that an immediate action on the departmental front was required to be undertaken and such action by its very nature had to be completely independent – Whether any criminal trial was pending or not would not be having any bearing on the pending issue before the Inquiry Committee – Approach adopted by the Management was fair and transparent – Decision of the Tribunal and the High Court, set aside – Order of termination passed by the appellant, affirmed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There were two FIRs filed pursuant to reporting that Respondent No.1 was guilty of objectionable behavior with adolescent girl students in the school. In both these FIRs the investigation was undertaken and charge-sheets stand filed. Thus, prima facie, the allegations made in the FIR were found sustainable in police investigation and Respondent No.1 is presently accused of having committed said offences. Pursuant to FIR bearing CR No.24 of 2014 Respondent No.1 was arrested and remained in custody for about seven days. During the present inquiry 12 witnesses were examined out of whom five witnesses were girls studying in the school. It was thus not just two girl students, pursuant to whose complaint the crime was registered against Respondent No.1, but there were other students as well. Some parents had also gone to the extent of levelling allegations against Respondent No.1. The conclusion by the Convener in the report that the charges were sensitive and that the case called for strict action, was absolutely correct. On the other hand, the reports of the Nominee of Respondent No.1 and the State Awardee Teacher not only show complete lack of sensitivity but they also got bogged down unnecessarily by a question whether any action on their part would amount to contempt of court or not. A departmental proceeding and proceedings in a criminal court are completely different. The purpose is different, the standard of proof is different and the approach is also different. The initiation of the process in a departmental proceeding, specially on charges as in the present matter can never be said to be amounting to contempt of court even if the criminal proceedings were pending. The allegations made against Respondent No.1 were of such level and dimension that an immediate action on the departmental front was required to be undertaken and such action by its very nature had to be completely independent. Whether any criminal trial was pending or not would not be having any bearing on the pending issue before the Inquiry Committee. The approach of the Nominee of Respondent No.1 and of the State Awardee Teacher was completely wrong and unsustainable. [Para 14][514-G-H; 515-A-F]
1.2 The approach adopted by the Management was not only fair and transparent but was in keeping with what is expected of the Management where allegations of sexual harassment of adolescent girls are in issue. The Tribunal, as well as the High Court failed to appreciate the matter in correct perspective. They ought to have accepted the decision taken by the Management. The decision of the Tribunal, as well as the High Court set aside and the order of termination pursuant to resolution dated 26.09.2014 passed by the Appellant is affirmed. [Paras 16, 17][517-A-C]
Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A. K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759 – relied on.
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy (1996) 9 SCC 322 : [1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 288 –
referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.