THE SECRETARY, LUCY SEQUEIRA TRUST AND ANR. versus KAILASH RAMESH TANDEL AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 507 · Decided: 08-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
507
THE SECRETARY, LUCY SEQUEIRA TRUST AND ANR.
v.
KAILASH RAMESH TANDEL AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3456  of 2019)
APRIL 08, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Service Law – Termination – Respondent No.1 appointed as
Assistant Teacher in school run by the Appellant – Warning issued
to respondent no.1 for his objectionable behavior with adolescent
girl students in the school – Inquiry Committee constituted consisting
of the Convenor, Nominee of the appellant, Nominee of respondent
no.1 and a State Awardee Teacher– Respondent no.1 terminated
from service – School Tribunal, Mumbai Region, Mumbai partly
allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.1, remitted the matter
for fresh consideration and also directed reinstatement of respondent
no.1, notionally for the purpose of conducting the inquiry –
Challenged by the appellant – Dismissed – On appeal, held: Two
FIRs were  filed pursuant to reporting that respondent no.1 was
guilty of objectionable behavior with adolescent girl students in
the school – In both the FIRs the charge-sheets stand filed – Prima
facie, the allegations made in the FIR were found sustainable in
police investigation and respondent no.1 is presently accused of
having committed said offences – Conclusion by the Convener in
the report that the charges were sensitive and that the case called
for strict action, was absolutely correct – Reports of the Nominee
of respondent no.1 and the State Awardee Teacher not only show
complete lack of sensitivity but they also unnecessarily got bogged
down by question whether any action on their part would amount
to contempt of court (pending criminal proceedings) or not –
Departmental proceeding and proceedings in criminal court are
completely different – Allegations made against respondent no.1
were of such level that an immediate action on the departmental
front was required to be undertaken and such action by its very
nature had to be completely independent – Whether any criminal
trial was pending or not would not be having any bearing on the
pending issue before the Inquiry Committee – Approach adopted
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 507
                                                    507
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
508
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
by the Management was fair and transparent – Decision of the
Tribunal and the High Court, set aside – Order of termination passed
by the appellant, affirmed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1  There were two FIRs filed pursuant to reporting
that Respondent No.1 was guilty of objectionable behavior with
adolescent girl students in the school. In both these FIRs the
investigation was undertaken and charge-sheets stand filed. Thus,
prima facie, the allegations made in the FIR were found
sustainable in police investigation and Respondent No.1 is
presently accused of having committed said offences. Pursuant
to FIR bearing CR No.24 of 2014 Respondent No.1 was arrested
and remained in custody for about seven days. During the present
inquiry 12 witnesses were examined out of whom five witnesses
were girls studying in the school. It was thus not just two girl
students, pursuant to whose complaint the crime was registered
against Respondent No.1, but there were other students as well.
Some parents had also gone to the extent of levelling allegations
against Respondent No.1. The conclusion by the Convener in
the report that the charges were sensitive and that the case called
for strict action, was absolutely correct. On the other hand, the
reports of the Nominee of Respondent No.1 and the State
Awardee Teacher not only show complete lack of sensitivity but
they also got bogged down unnecessarily by a question whether
any action on their part would amount to contempt of court or
not. A departmental proceeding and proceedings in a criminal
court are completely different. The purpose is different, the
standard of proof is different and the approach is also different.
The initiation of the process in a departmental proceeding,
specially on charges as in the present matter can never be said
to be amounting to contempt of court even if the criminal
proceedings were pending. The allegations made against
Respondent No.1 were of such level and dimension that an
immediate action on the departmental front was required to be
undertaken and such action by its very nature had to be completely
independent.  Whether any criminal trial was pending or not would
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
509
not be having any bearing on the pending is

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.