9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Exercise of discretion under Article 226. 2. Maintainability of writ petition against Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan. 3. Opportunity for appellant-respondent to present their case. 4. Interpretation of Rule 81-b of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan rules. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Exercise of discretion under Article 226: The appellant contended that the case was not suitable for exercising discretion under Article 226 due to the petitioner's conduct. The court examined the necessity of invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction and concluded that the discretion should be exercised to build the character of the nation rather than encouraging misconduct based on technical pleas. 2. Maintainability of writ petition against Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan: The appellant argued that the writ petition was not maintainable against Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan as it is not a State. However, the court did not consider this issue in detail, as the appeal was decided on merits, rendering this point moot. 3. Opportunity for appellant-respondent to present their case: The appellant claimed that they were not given a proper opportunity to present their case. The court noted that the appellant had entrusted the file to an advocate who was later appointed as a judge, leading to a lack of proper authorization to submit the reply. Despite this, the court found that the summary enquiry conducted was sufficient and that the principles of natural justice could be curtailed by statute or rule under specific circumstances. 4. Interpretation of Rule 81-b of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan rules: The court analyzed Rule 81-b, which allows the Commissioner to terminate an employee's services if they are prima facie guilty of moral turpitude involving a sexual offense. The rule dispenses with the requirement for a full enquiry if it would cause serious embarrassment to the student or their guardians. The court found that the Commissioner had formed an opinion, recorded reasons, and informed the Chairman, fulfilling the requirements of Rule 81-b. The court reviewed the summary enquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner and the Principal, which included statements from the victim and other relevant parties. The Commissioner concluded that holding a regular enquiry would cause serious embarrassment to the student, thus justifying the termination without a full enquiry. The court referenced several precedents, including the Supreme Court's observation that reasons recorded in the file are sufficient and do not need to be communicated to the delinquent officer. The court also noted that the discretion to dispense with an enquiry must be exercised judicially and reasonably, which was done in this case. Conclusion: The court set aside the learned single Judge's order dated 23rd April 1991, allowed the appeal, and dismissed the writ petition with a cost of Rs. 2,000. The court emphasized that the procedure under Rule 81-b was followed correctly and that the termination was justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
|
