THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25607 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a School Assistant by the Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Rampachodavaram, and was posted in the Government Tribal Welfare Ashram, Girls High School, Yarlagadda Village, the 3rd respondent herein. On the complaint submitted by the parents of a student, to the effect that their daughter, a student of the institution, was raped by the petitioner by giving intoxicants, a charge-sheet was issued to him on 08-12-2010. The Deputy Director of Tribal Welfare was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, who, in his report, held the charges against the petitioner are proved. After issuing a further show cause notice, dated 18-07-2011, the 2nd respondent dismissed the petitioner from service, through proceedings dated 03-08-2011. The petitioner states that the girl, who complained against him, is his relation, and that he married her. He further states that in S.C.No.93 of 2011, he was tried for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 of I.P.C., by the Court of I Additional Assistant Judge, Rajahmundry, and that the trial Court has acquitted him, through judgment dated 20-07-2011, taking note of the fact that the complainant and the petitioner had married. In this background, the petitioner submits that the order of dismissal, passed against him, cannot be sustained in law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. The petitioner has brought disrepute to the entire teaching profession by his heinous act. He does not dispute the fact that he raped a student of the Ashram School for girls, and that the victim became pregnant. It was under compulsion that he married the said girl. That however does not absolve the petitioner from the gravest of the misconducts, committed by him, in the school premises. The acquittal in the criminal case was, on account of the fact that the victim was married by the accused, and that the victim did not press her grievance, further. At the most, that would constitute an act of benevolence on the part of the victim, but it does not wipe away the acts of gross indiscipline and misconduct, resorted to by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.14-09-2011. KO