IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE Second Appeal No.1225 of 2005 Bhimogonda Hanmanta Patil ..Appellant vs. 1. The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur & Ors. ...Respondents Shri N.M.Ganguli for appellant. Shri Madan Goswami for respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. J. J. 25th July, 2007 July, 2007 July, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Shri Ganguli appearing for the appellant and Shri Goswami appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by dismissal of Reg.Civil Appeal no.401 of 2001 by the First Appellate Court. The dismissal of the appeal confirms decree of the Trial Court in Reg.Civil Suit No.218 of 1999. 3. This suit was instituted by the appellant/original plaintiff challenging the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing him from service in as much as the declaration claimed that the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer is illegal and vitiated was not granted. 4. Shri Ganguli, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/teacher submits that the substantial question of law that arise for consideration in this appeal is whether the Disciplinary Authority having diferred with the Enquiry Authority and decided to impose a penalty which was major in nature, should have complied with the principles of natural justice. In other words, whether it was obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to have given a show cause notice to the appellant and after his explanation is received, hear him and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. According to Shri Ganguli that having not been done, the Disciplinary Authority’s order reversing that of the Enquiry Officer was clearly vitiated and the Courts below have erred in dismissing the appellant’s suit. 5. Reliance is placed by Shri Ganguli on several decisions of the Supreme Court in this behalf. 6. To my mind, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is neither vitiated by breach of principles of natural justice nor can be termed as illegal or perverse calling for interference by the Courts below. 7. It has come on record, as has been observed by the lower Appellate Court so also the Trial Court, that the appellant/plaintiff was working as a teacher and was in service of the original defendant. 8. He was charged with outraging the modesty of a girl student studying in 6th standard. Initially a criminal complaint was filed alleging offence punishable under sec.354 of the I.P.C. but subsequently the proceedings, according to Shri Ganguli, were compromised. 9. Be that as it may, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and not only by averring in the written statement but producing the record, the respondent/school established that the appellant teacher has not misconducted himself for the first time. Even when in service earlier, he was charged with similar offence and that was with regard to a girl student in the second standard. A warning was given to him but he did not improve despite having been transferred to another school. There is a clear admission in the cross examination of the appellant/original plaintiff that a notice was served upon him by the Disciplinary Authority and sufficient opportunity was given to him in the proceedings even during the Departmental Enquiry. 10. The entire service record was produced (Exh.33-A). Upon perusal of all the materials which have been referred to in the Appellate Court’s order at para 4, the Court concluded that this is a case where the appellant/teacher is guilty of a very serious charge namely outraging modesty of a girl student. 11. After perusing the judgments of the Courts below with the assitence of Shri Ganguli, I am of the opinion that in the light of voluminous material on record, which demonstrates the complicity of the appellant in the incident and even prior record being of the nature commented upon by the Courts below, this is not a fit case for interference in my limited jurisdiction under sec.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. The Courts below have satisfied themselves having regard to the service record and deposition before the Trial Court that this is a case of admitted guilt. The appellant/teacher has not denied the incident. In such a case, technical breaches, if any, are not relevant. Ultimately, the appellant being a teacher in the school where girl students are studying, it was expected of him to have shown greater responsibility and exercise utmost care. More so, when this was a second incident and earlier he was warned and transferred. 13. Action of dismissal was, therefore, not suffering from any perversity or vitiated as contended by Shri Ganguli. Second appeal is summarily dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)