CWP No.15613 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15613 of 2010 Date of decision : 31.08.2010 Ravi Kumar, the Head Master ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner RANJIT SINGH, J. On the basis of a serious allegation made against the petitioner-Head Master of the school for an indecent behaviour with the students on his part and inappropriate behaviour with the members of the teaching staff, the punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the said Head Master. The petitioner has come forward to challenge the said punishment through the present writ petition. Indecent behaviour towards the student by a teacher who is head of the institution being head Master, is something which will be and should be intolerable inviting serious repercussions. School are not only meant to impart studies alone but are temples of learning. Teachers are CWP No.15613 of 2010 -2- gurus and are to teach good moral values to innocent students who spend more time in schools than their homes. Teacher who is the Head Master is a parental trustee in whose care the student remains during the school hours. If he starts behaving in an indecent or inappropriate manner, it will be something which certainly would call for serious notice and widest condemnation. The issue against the petitioner arose on account of a news item annexed with the petition as P-2 . As per the news item, the petitioner is alleged to have misbehaved with female students in Vishvas School, Hisar. The petitioner has allegedly committed obscene acts with female students. Some statements of about forty female students were recorded under the directions of SDM Ishwar Singh Dahiya. The allegations were that the petitioner after washing his hands did obscene acts under the pretexts of wiping his hands with the Dupatta of the girls student. When the girl students objected the petitioner, threatened them to strike their names off the rolls of school. The matter was finally brought in open by one girl when she reported to her parents though otherwise the girls were keeping quiet. It then surfaced that the petitioner used to enter into the class rooms in filmy style wearing black shades while combing his hair and instead of teaching he kept devising means to attract the female students. In addition, there were complaints against the petitioner by the staff also for inappropriate behaviour. This episode was reported in the press. Though the petitioner managed another story which was covered in the press with the caption reading “Allegation against the Head Master found baseless” but the incident led to a direction to hold an enquiry into the allegations. Initially, the preliminary enquiry was held by Deputy Director, Institution office of Director School Education where the statement of some girls student from 8th, 9th and 10th class were obtained in writing to CWP No.15613 of 2010 -3- the effect that the petitioner was innocent. One girl of 9th class, however, gave in writing that the petitioner used to wipe his hands with the scarff/chunni besides using abusive language. The girls, however, were not interested in perusing the complaint as petitioner had felt sorry for his behaviour before the entire village. The Sarpanch and Gram Panchayat of the village had also come forward to say that they were not aware of the acts of indecent or inappropriate behaviour by the Head Master. On the basis of this statement and the personal interaction of the Investigating Officer with the witnesses, the petitioner was found responsible for wiping his hands with scarff/chunni of one girl namely Miss Kela Devi and also for his behaviour being not decent towards his staff. The above noted finding led to framing of charges against the petitioner and direction to hold enquiry for imposing major penalty under Rule 7 of Haryana Services (Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1987). The enquiry was accordingly held on following two charges:- 1. That he cleansed his hands with the Dupatta (chunni) of Miss Kela Devi students of 9th class of GHS Dhollu, with bad intentions. 2. That his behaviour with almost all the members of teaching/other staff had not been decent. The Inquiry Officer, however, found the petitioner not guilty primarily on the ground that the complainant was summoned twice but she did not turn up. Rather, the affidavit on behalf of the complainant was submitted before the Inquiry Officer to say that the petitioner did nothing objectionable with her. Another affidavit was also placed before the Inquiry Officer to the effect that his behaviour had been satisfactory with the girl CWP No.15613 of 2010 -4- students. The disciplinary authority however differed with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer and after giving opportunity for personal hearing, it came to conclude that the Inquiry Officer did not appreciated the fact appropriately, as placed on file and as such imposed the penalty of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect while taking a lenient view of the entire episode. The counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied upon the finding of the Inquiry Officer to urge that the allegation made against the petitioner were not proved and hence action to punish him was not fair. The counsel, however, had to concede that the disciplinary authority had the power and jurisdiction to differ with the finding returned by the Inquiry Officer and while doing so it had also the power to impose penalty. The manner, in which the Inquiry Officer has recorded conclusion in favour of the petitioner, apparently is not satisfactory mode. Inquiry Officer did not make any efforts to summon the complainant and relied upon the affidavit submitted before him. Apparently, great efforts must have been made primarily by the petitioner to win over the witnesses and that is how this affidavit were filed before the Inquiry Officer. It is on record that during the preliminary enquiry the students had stood by the allegation made against the petitioner. It is also on record that the petitioner had tendered apology before the village and that would explain the reasons for which the students and the village Panchayat wanted to forgive and forget. The disciplinary authority has appreciated the entire background in a well considered manner and the conclusion drawn by the authority are fully justified on the basis of material on record. The punishment imposed is rather lenient. The disciplinary authority statedly has taken a lenient view. The teacher who is supposed to be a role model for a student and is meant to built the moral and character of a student is CWP No.15613 of 2010 -5- seen behaving in a manner which is indecent, inappropriate and highly undesirable. Such a teacher having been found guilty of indulging and behaving in an indecent manner towards girls student was required to be dealt with sternly. Such a teacher perhaps would have no place in service. To interfere in the award of punishment of stoppage of 5 increments with cumulative effect, thus, would amount to doing injustice to the case. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. August 31, 2010 (RANJIT SINGH) G.Arora JUDGE