Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and another, the management of a school, against the judgment of the Bombay High Court which had upheld the order of the School Tribunal. The Tribunal had partly allowed the appeal of the respondent teacher, Kailash Ramesh Tandel, and remitted the matter for fresh inquiry while directing his reinstatement. The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 01.09.2004. He was issued a warning on 04.05.2009 for objectionable behavior with adolescent girl students. On 14.12.2012, a mother of a teenaged student complained, leading to a memo on 24.01.2013. Another student filed an FIR on 05.02.2013 under Section 509 IPC. On 16.01.2014, a father of another girl complained, resulting in FIR No.25/2014 under Section 354-A IPC read with Sections 9(f), 10, 11 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The respondent was arrested on 21.01.2014 and remained in custody till 28.01.2014. The school committee passed a resolution on 31.01.2014 to take action, suspended him on 04.03.2014, and issued a charge-sheet on 07.04.2014. An inquiry committee was constituted on 21.04.2014 comprising a convenor (nominee of management), nominee of the respondent, and a State Awardee Teacher. The convenor submitted a report on 20.09.2014 recommending termination, finding the charges proved after examining 12 witnesses including five girl students. However, the nominee of the respondent and the State Awardee Teacher refused to sign the report, stating that giving a decision would amount to contempt of court as criminal proceedings were pending. The management terminated the respondent's services on 26.09.2014. The respondent appealed to the School Tribunal, which on 17.02.2017 partly allowed the appeal, remitting the matter for fresh inquiry and directing reinstatement. The High Court dismissed the management's writ petition on 04.09.2017. The Supreme Court held that the departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings are independent; the principle of preponderance of probability applies in departmental inquiries. The two members of the inquiry committee were wrong in keeping their decision in abeyance. The disciplinary authority was competent to accept the convenor's report and pass the termination order. The Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and High Court and upheld the termination, noting that reinstating such a teacher would be hazardous to the safety of students.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Independence from Criminal Proceedings - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - The departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings are independent; the principle of preponderance of probability applies in departmental inquiry, whereas criminal trial requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. The inquiry committee members cannot keep their decision in abeyance pending outcome of criminal case. (Paras 14-18) B) Service Law - Inquiry Committee - Effect of Dissenting or Non-Participating Members - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - Where two members of a three-member inquiry committee refuse to give a conclusive finding on the erroneous ground that it would amount to contempt of court, the disciplinary authority is competent to accept the report of the convenor and proceed to pass an order of termination. (Paras 14-18) C) Service Law - Termination - Validity - Misconduct of Sexual Nature with Students - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 9(f), 10, 11; Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 354-A, 509 - Termination of a teacher found guilty of outraging the modesty of girl students and sexually harassing them is valid and justified; reinstatement would be hazardous to the safety of students. (Paras 14-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the School Tribunal and High Court were justified in remitting the matter for fresh inquiry and directing reinstatement of the respondent teacher when the inquiry committee's convenor had found charges proved and the management had terminated services based on that report.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and School Tribunal, and upheld the termination of the respondent teacher. The Court held that the departmental inquiry was valid and the management was justified in terminating the services of the respondent based on the convenor's report.
Law Points
- Departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings are independent
- principle of preponderance of probability applies in departmental inquiry
- disciplinary authority can act on inquiry committee report even if some members abstain
- termination valid if charges proved.
