Gauhati High Court upholds sacking of teacher for ‘molesting’ Class 5 student, slams ‘immoral behaviour’

The order added that the authority also dispensed with holding a regular enquiry under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, or CCS(CCA) Rules to save the minor girls and their parents from serious embarrassment and mental agony.

Case of molestation

The petitioner, a primary school teacher in West Bengal, was accused by the father of a female student of attempting to molest her in a school room and bathroom in February 2014.

When she tried to resist, the petitioner threatened the child saying that he would beat her if she reported it to anybody, the complainant alleged. Further, the petitioner (teacher) was said to have periodically disturbed the girl and other children.

A six-member preliminary inquiry committee was constituted to verify the complaint. The committee, after taking the statements of the girl, her mother, other students, and the petitioner, concluded that the petitioner tried to molest the girl and that he was habituated to doing such acts.

After considering the preliminary inquiry report, a summary inquiry committee was formed, which concluded that the charge of exhibiting immoral behaviour towards the girl was established. Considering both reports and the representation submitted by the accused, his service was terminated in 2014.

Aggrieved by his termination and the rejection of his appeal, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed his plea. The petitioner then challenged the CAT order before the Gauhati High Court.

Arguments of parties

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate A K Pukayastha submitted before the Gauhati High Court that the authorities could not have terminated the service of the petitioner without holding a regular inquiry in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules.

He further continued that the action could have been taken against the petitioner only under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH).

Representing the state, advocate S C Biswas argued before the Gauhati High Court that there is no infirmity in the decision of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner, as he had been found guilty of improper sexual behaviour towards girl students, which amounts to moral turpitude involving immoral sexual behaviour.

He contended that a teacher who was to teach and protect his girl students cannot be allowed to remain in the school as a predator, which would endanger the safety and dignity of the girl students.

POSH Act not applicable: Court

The first issue is whether the POSH Act applies to this case, the Gauhati High Court noted. Section 2(a) of the Act provides that an “aggrieved woman” means, in relation to a workplace, a woman of any age, whether employed or not, who alleges to have been subjected to any act of sexual harassment by the respondent.

Section 9(1) of the Act states that any aggrieved woman may make, in writing, a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace to the internal committee if so constituted, or the local committee, in case it is not so constituted, within a period of three months from the date of the incident and in case of a series of incidents, within a period of three months from the date of last incident.

Based on this, it is clear that the POSH Act does not apply to the facts of this case, since a girl student of Class 5 cannot be said to be an “aggrieved woman”, the court stated.

A girl of Class 5, who is less than 18 years of age, cannot be said to be a woman, nor can the school be a workplace, understood and applied in terms of the POSH Act, the Gauhati High Court held.

Court’s stricture on suppression of facts

• The Gauhati High Court expressed “surprise” and serious concern that the petitioner had submitted an incomplete version of the termination memorandum, deliberately omitting lines that explained why the regular inquiry was dispensed with.
• Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in K D Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd, the bench reminded litigants that those invoking the court’s extraordinary jurisdiction must be “truthful, frank, and open” and cannot play “hide-and-seek” with facts.
• As the issue pertains to misconduct, i.e., immoral behaviour/moral turpitude by a teacher towards his students, relevant sections of the education code can be applied for terminating the services of a teacher and doing away with holding a regular enquiry, on account of the embarrassment that may be suffered by the student or her guardians on some other practical difficulties.
• As the complaint made against the petitioner involves moral turpitude and the same has been proven by the preliminary inquiry and summary inquiry, which has been accepted by the authority, we do not find any ground to interfere with the decision of the authority, the Gauhati High Court held.
• The decision of the authority has been taken after following all required procedures and allowing the petitioner to explain the complaint made against him.
• The impugned order of termination of the service of the petitioner shows that the competent authority has gone through the report of the summary inquiry, the preliminary inquiry, the statement of the girl, other students, parents, staff, and staff members, as well as the statement of the petitioner, the Gauhati High Court noted.