Removal of a teacher for proved misconduct toward female students upheld; inquiry satisfied natural justice.

The applicant, a Trained Graduate Teacher in the Puducherry Education Department, was transferred to Akka Swamigal Government Middle School, Vaithikuppam. He was suspended on 20 March 2017 pending disciplinary proceedings and was served with a charge memorandum dated 22 June 2017 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

The charge alleged that he had misbehaved with female students of Classes VII and VIII, caused them mental distress, and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant under Rule 3(i)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

An Inquiry Officer was appointed, and the inquiry report dated 30 April 2018 found the charge proved. The report was supplied to the applicant, who submitted his representation on 12 June 2018.

Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 6 September 2018, imposed the major penalty of removal from service.

1. Whether the disciplinary inquiry was vitiated by violation of natural justice because the alleged victim students and other material witnesses were not examined, and because the findings allegedly relied upon the written complaint of a student’s mother.

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with Rule 14 and Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, including the furnishing of the inquiry report and opportunity to submit a representation.

3. Whether the penalty of removal from service was unwarranted or disproportionate in view of the applicant’s long and otherwise unblemished service.

4. Whether the prolonged suspension and the impugned disciplinary action warranted interference by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied Rule 3(i)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which prohibits a Government servant from acting in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, and Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, governing major-penalty disciplinary inquiries.

It also applied Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, under which the charged employee must be furnished the inquiry report and given an opportunity to submit a representation before the Disciplinary Authority reaches its decision.

On natural justice and examination of victims in cases involving alleged sexual or moral misconduct by teachers, the Tribunal relied on Ashok Kumar Yadav v. Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, N.T.P.C., Shaktinagar and Yogendra Nath v. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, which recognise that a fair inquiry does not invariably confer an unrestricted right to cross-examine the victim where such examination may cause embarrassment or prejudice, provided the charged employee receives the material allegations and a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

The applicant’s reliance on Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, concerning prolonged suspension, was noted as part of his submissions, but did not result in relief.

The Tribunal found that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated under the prescribed rules, an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were duly appointed, and the applicant was afforded opportunities to defend himself.

Although the applicant challenged the non-examination of the alleged victim students, the Tribunal held that the applicable principles did not require an unfettered right to cross-examine the victims in circumstances involving allegations of misconduct towards schoolgirls, particularly where the employee had otherwise received the charge materials, participated in the inquiry, and was allowed to respond to the inquiry report.

The Disciplinary Authority independently considered the inquiry report, the available material, and the applicant’s written representation before imposing the penalty.

Given the heightened standard of conduct expected from a teacher and the gravity of established misconduct involving female students, the Tribunal found the penalty of removal neither arbitrary nor disproportionate.

The plea concerning prolonged suspension and the applicant’s past service record did not justify interference with the final disciplinary action.

The alleged non-examination of the victim students did not, in the circumstances, establish a violation of natural justice.

The penalty of removal from service was upheld as justified by the gravity of the proved misconduct and the responsibilities attaching to a teacher.

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.