IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 19242 of 2010(S) -------------------------- OA.631/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: --------------- V.AROCKIA SAMY, AGED 58 YEARS, 1/4159, P.M.KUTTY ROAD, NEAR TELECOM OFFICER QUARTERS, EAST HILL, KOZHIKODE-673005. BY ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, 18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI-110602. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA-I, EAST HILL, KOZHIKODE. ADV. M/S.IYER & IYER, SC.KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.19242 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. W.P.(C) is filed against Ext.P13 order of the C.A.T. dismissing the O.A. filed by the petitioner. Petitioner while working as a P.G. Teacher in the Central School misbehaved with a girl student of the 11th Standard and he was terminated from service in 1995. Even though an appeal was filed before the statutory authority, the appeal happened to be decided only in 2007. Thereafter in 2008 O.A. was filed by the appellant which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 1.12.2009. Strangely even though no orders were issued on the appeal filed for 12 years, petitioner did not care to do anything but later obtained orders and challenged the same after 13 years of the impugned action. The Tribunal rejected the O.A. holding that in enquiry petitioner was found to be involved in misbehaviour with a girl student. 2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is violation of natural justice and so much so, the order is liable to be set aside. 2 However, we find that enquiry was conducted by the Educational Officer before whom one of the teachers gave evidence that petitioner admitted to him that he had called the girl to the Lab and if the girl is unhappy about his behaviour, he was sorry. We do not think petitioner's explanation is acceptable because admittedly he called the girl alone to the Lab where nobody else was there and according to the girl-student, petitioner misbehaved with her by catching hold her and trying to hug her. Even though petitioner is denying the misbehaviour alleged, he has no explanation as to why a Commerce student, a grown up girl was called by him alone in the Physics Lab, when there was no one else in the Lab. We feel atleast attempt of misbehaviour stands established beyond any doubt. Petitioner's conduct is most unbecoming of a school teacher and therefore, petitioner was rightly removed from service. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the C.A.T. Consequently W.P.(C) is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms