Teacher's Termination for Moral Turpitude Upheld; Summary Inquiry Valid.

The applicant, Shri Umesh Babu M., an Arts Teacher appointed on March 25, 1995, faced allegations of moral turpitude involving immoral sexual behavior towards girl students.

A Summary Trial Committee, constituted according to Notification No. 14-2/93-NVS (Vig.) dated December 20, 1993, found him guilty, leading to his termination on April 16, 2013.

The applicant challenged this before the CAT, which dismissed his OA.

He then filed a writ petition with the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench (Writ Petition No.205259/2014 (S-CAT)), which on March 12, 2019, quashed both the Tribunal's decision and the termination order, instructing a full-fledged domestic inquiry while noting the impermissibility of examining girl students in sexual harassment cases, but allowing cross-examination of the committee report's authors.

The respondents' subsequent appeals to the Supreme Court were dismissed.

Following contempt proceedings, the applicant was reinstated on June 29, 2021.

A re-constituted Domestic Enquiry Committee submitted a report on July 7, 2022, which again led to the applicant's termination on September 12, 2022.

The applicant's internal appeal against this termination was dismissed on October 26, 2023.

The applicant filed this OA initially on June 5, 2023, seeking to quash the penalty order and, following the appellate decision, amended the OA on April 1, 2024, to include the challenge against the appellate order.

Whether the termination order dated September 12, 2022, and the appellate order dated October 26, 2023, are liable to be quashed due to an alleged violation of natural justice, specifically regarding non-supply of relevant documents and denial of cross-examination opportunities?

Whether the inquiry proceedings were biased due to the inclusion of Smt. G. Anusuya, Deputy Commissioner, NVS, as a committee member, given her previous involvement in contempt proceedings against the respondents where the applicant had named her?

Whether the reliance on Notification dated December 20, 1993, for conducting the domestic inquiry, instead of the CCS (CCA) Rules, was impermissible?

Whether the punishment of dismissal awarded to the applicant was disproportionate or too harsh given the proved misconduct?

The court primarily applied the principles of natural justice, emphasizing the requirement for a reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of a reasonable person for the doctrine of bias to apply, rather than actual proof of prejudice.

It cited State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta (2013) 3 SCC 1, and Shailja Srivastava v. Banaras Hindu University, 1992 SCC OnLine All 465, to establish that a reasonable likelihood of bias, even if not actual, can vitiate proceedings and that fairness must be seen to be done.

The court also relied on the Notification No. 14-2/93-NVS (Vig.) dated December 20, 1993, regarding summary inquiries in cases of unnatural sexual behavior towards girl students of NVS, which allows for dispensing with regular inquiries under CCS (CCA) Rules in specific circumstances to protect students and the institution's reputation.

Precedents such as Avinash Nagra Vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Etc. [1997] 2 SCC 534, Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti v. Babban Prasad Yadav (2004) 13 SCC 568, and Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. V. Rathin Pal SLP (C) 4627/2008 were extensively cited to uphold the validity of summary inquiries and dispensing with regular inquiry procedures in cases of moral turpitude involving students, even restricting cross-examination of victim students.

The court also underscored the high ethical standards and role expected of a teacher, drawing from various judicial observations and philosophical tenets.

The court found the applicant's allegations of natural justice violation unconvincing.

Regarding the denial of cross-examination of the previous committee report authors, the court noted that the applicant himself admitted to being offered the opportunity but declined it, rendering his current claim baseless.

Concerning the non-supply of relevant documents, the court observed that the applicant could not specify which critical documents were withheld or how such withholding caused prejudice, and the inquiry report indicated that documents were either supplied, provided for perusal, or reasons for denial were explicitly stated (e.g., to protect identity of complainants).

On the issue of bias against Smt. G. Anusuya, the court determined that her inclusion in contempt proceedings was in her official capacity, and the High Court had found substantial compliance, not passing any adverse personal order against her.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to add Smt. G. Anusuya as a party to the current OA despite alleging personal bias, which weakened his contention.

The court upheld the legality of conducting the inquiry under the Notification dated December 20, 1993, rather than CCS (CCA) Rules, citing Supreme Court judgments in Avinash Nagra, Babban Prasad Yadav, and Rathin Pal which permitted summary inquiries in cases of moral turpitude against teachers involving girl students, to protect their safety and modesty.

Given the gravity of the allegations of sexual exploitation and misconduct towards minor girl students, the court emphasized the elevated ethical standards expected of a teacher, concluding that the imposed punishment of dismissal was appropriate and not unduly harsh.

The court held that there was no illegality or irregularity in the penalty order dated September 12, 2022, or the appellate order dated October 26, 2023.

The applicant's claims of denial of natural justice, bias, and reliance on an incorrect procedure were rejected, as sufficient opportunities were provided, and the inquiry was conducted appropriately under the relevant notification.

The punishment of dismissal was deemed just and proper given the serious nature of the misconduct and the role of a teacher.

All pending MA(s) are disposed of.