In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.4.93 of the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, terminating his services as a primary teacher and for a direction on the respondents to reinstate him in service with full service benefits and to pay him compensation of Rs.2 lacs for harassment, victimisation and persecution. 2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner is a handicapped person. He graduated in Mathematics from Gorakhpur University in the year 1972 and thereafter completed his B.Ed, from the said University in the year 1976. He was then regularly appointed as a primary teacher in Mathematics in Kendriya Vidyalaya on 26.7.79. In 1983 he was removed from service and thereafter reinstated. In 1987 he' was posted in Kendriya Vidyalaya at Missa Cantonment, Nagaon. While he was acting as a primary teacher at the said Kendriya Vidyalaya he was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings by order dated 31.8.90 of the Chairman, Vidyalaya Management Committee and the said order of suspension was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Guwahati by his order dated 7.9.90. The petitioner received a letter dated 5.9.90. from Inquiry Officer, Dr. PC Bhatt, intimating him that a complaint had been made that he had sexually abused a girl of Class II and he was asked to submit his comments regarding the incident. The petitioner then wrote to the Inquiry Officer of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan stating inter alia, that the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya had permitted a girl to study in Class II although she had not been admitted to the school and that he put four five times out of the class and told her to call her parents but she did not call her parents and on 19.8.90 when he was coming from Salona Market the father of the girl wrapped his neck with a turban cloth and dragged him out of his scooter and started beating but he was rescued by his colleague and taken to Section Hospital Missa Camp and from there he was transferred to Civil Hospital at Nagaon. In the said letter, the petitioner alleged that the girl child was studying without admission since Class I and that the suspension order issued by the Chairman was without any cause. In the said letter, the petitioner alleged that the girl child was studying without admission since Class I and that the suspension order issued by the Chairman was without any cause. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted several representations to the Assistant Commissioner, Guwahati Region, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan as well as to the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. But the petitioner was not reinstated in service. Finally, by the impugned order dated 9.4.93, the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi, terminated the service of the petitioner with immediate effect under Article 81 (b) of the Education Code of Kendriya Vidyalaya. The petitioner has challenged the said order of termination on several grounds in this petition. 3. The first ground urged by Mr. AK MAheswari, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned order is vitiated by malafide. He submitted that the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya and the Chairman, Vidyalaya Management Committee had allowed a girl child to attend the Kendriya Vidyalaya in Classes I and II without the child having been admitted to the school and only because the petitioner objected to this irregularity on the part of the Principal and the Chairman that his services have been terminated by the impugned order dated 9.4.93. Mr, Maheswari contended that both the Principal and the Chairman have been personally impleaded as respondents 4 and 5 respectively and the aforesaid allegations have been made in the writ petition against the said respondents 4 and 5; but neither of them has filed and affidavit-in-opposition denying the aforesaid allegations against them. He cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Pratap Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 74 and State of Punjab vs. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471 , in support of his submission that where specific allegations have been made against the respondents, they can be said to be disputed only when affidavits denying the said allegations are filed by those parties against whom allegations are made. In the instant case, since no affidavit has been filed either by the Principal or the Chairman who are impleaded as respondents 4 and 5 respectively denying the allegations of malaflde, this Court should treat the allegations of malafide as proved and quash the impugned order dated 9.4.93, Mr. In the instant case, since no affidavit has been filed either by the Principal or the Chairman who are impleaded as respondents 4 and 5 respectively denying the allegations of malaflde, this Court should treat the allegations of malafide as proved and quash the impugned order dated 9.4.93, Mr. Chand Mohammad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the records produced before the Court would clearly show that there are no malafides on the part of the authorities in terminating the services of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 9.4.93. 4. In the case of Pratap Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), the Supreme Court has held in para 14 of the judgment, as reported in AIR 1964 SC 72 , that if the allegations made in the petition are irrelevant, and even if true, would not afford a basis upon which the petitioner would be entitled to any relief, they need not be answered and the petitioner would derive no benefit from the respondents not answering them. But if the allegations are relevant, in the absence of their intrinsic improbability, the allegations can be countered by documentary or affidavit evidence which would show their falsity and in the absence of such evidence they can be disputed only by the parties against whom allegations are made denying the same on oath. In the. instant case, therefore, one has to first find out as to whether the allegations made against the Principal and the Chairman, respondents 4 and 5 respectively have any relevance and if true would have afforded a basis for any relief to the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order of termination dated 9.4.93 which has been passed not by the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Missa Cantonment nor by the Chairman, Vidyalaya Management Committee of the Kendriya Vidyalaya but by the Commissioner of . Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi. The ground for .termination of the services of the petitioner is that the Commissioner was satisfied from a summary inquiry that the petitioner was guilty of moral turpitude involving sexual offence and exhibition of immoral sexual behavior towards the complainant students. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi. The ground for .termination of the services of the petitioner is that the Commissioner was satisfied from a summary inquiry that the petitioner was guilty of moral turpitude involving sexual offence and exhibition of immoral sexual behavior towards the complainant students. Thus the allegations against the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Missa Cantonment and the Chairman of Vidyalaya Management Committee of the said Kendriya Vidyalaya that they had allowed one girl student to attend classes without any admission into the school has no relevance whatsoever to the aforesaid order of termination dated 9.4.93 passed by the Commissioner and the grounds for such termination. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pratap Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) therefore, the allegations even if true would not afford a basis upon which the petitioner would be entitled to any relief and they need not be answered and the petitioner would derive no benefit from the respondents 4 and 5 not answering them. 5. It was next urged by Mr. Maheswari, learned counsel for the petitioner, that one Sri SN Dube, Education Officer, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Guwahati Region, Guwahati, has sworn an affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of respondents and at the end of the affidavit-in-opposition he has stated that the statements made in the affidavit are true to his knowledge, belief and information. According to Mr. Maheswari, since the said deponent of the affidavit-in-opposition has not stated as to which paragraph of the affidavit are true to his knowledge and as to which paragraphs are true to his information and belief, the affidavit-in-opposition is defective and is in violation of Order VI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He cited the decision of this Court in the case of Mai Chandra Pegu vs. Karuna Dutta, 1997 (2) GLJ 309, in which the Court has held that several statement of facts have been made in the petition, the deponent should clearly state which are the facts which are true to his knowledge and which are the facts which are true to his information and indicate also the source of information and which are the facts which believed to be true. Mr. Maheswari is right that at the end of the affidavit, the deponent of the affidavit-in-oppotion Dr. Mr. Maheswari is right that at the end of the affidavit, the deponent of the affidavit-in-oppotion Dr. SN Dube, Education Officer, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Guwahati Region, should have clearly indicated the facts which are true to his knowledge and the facts which are true to his information and which he believed to be true and should not have generally stated that the statements made in the affidavit in paragraphs 1 to 49 are true to his knowledge, information and belief. But the consequence of such a defective affidavit is that the Court will not rely on the said affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents. In the present case however besides the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondents have produced the records and this Court instead of relying on the affidavit-in-opposition will decide the points raised in this writ petition by referring to the said records. 6. The next ground urged by Mr.Maheswari was that the disciplinary authority has not at all applied its mind as to whether regular inquiry for imposing major penalty as contemplated by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 as applicable to the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan should be dispensed with or not on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case. He cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1991) 1 SCC362, in which it has been held that the decision to dispense with departmental inquiry cannot be rested solely on the ipse dixit of the concerned authority to dispense with departmental inquiry if questioned in a Court of law, it is incumbent on those who support the order to show that the satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not the outcome of the whim or caprice of the concerned officer. Mr.Chand Mohammad, on the other hand, relying on the records of the case produced before me submitted that the records would show that the satisfaction of the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi to dispense with the departmental inquiry in the present case was based on certain objective facts and it was not arbitrary and that the satisfaction was exercised in accordance with the provision of Article 81 (b) of the Education Code applicable of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. 7. Article 81(b) of the aforesaid Education Code is extracted herein below: "81. 7. Article 81(b) of the aforesaid Education Code is extracted herein below: "81. (b) Termination of service of and employee guilty of immoral bahaviour towards students. Wherever the Commissioner is satisfied after such a summary enquiry as he deems proper and practicable in the circumstances of the case that any member of the Kendriya Vidyalaya is prima facie guilty of moral turpitude involving sexual offence or exhibition of immoral sexual behaviour towards any student, he can terminate the services of that employee by giving him one month's or 3 month's pay and allowances according as the guilty employee is temporary or permanent in the service of the Sangathan. In such cases procedure prescribed for holding enquiry for imposing major penalty in accordance with CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as applicable to the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, shall be dispensed with, provided that the Commissioner is of the opinion that it is not expedient to hold regular enquiry on account of serious embarrassment to the student or his guardians or such other practical difficulties. The Commissioner shall record in writing the reasons under which it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry and he shall keep the Chairman of the Sangathan informed of the circumstances leading to such termination of services." Thus the aforesaid provision states that wherever the Commissioner was satisfied after such a summary enquiry as he deems proper and practicable in the circumstances of the case that any member of the Kendriya Vidyalaya is prima facie guilty of moral turpitude involving sexual offence or exhibition of immoral sexual behaviour towards any student he may terminate the services of that employee by giving him one month's or 3 months' pay and allowance and in such cases procedure prescribed for holding enquiry for imposing major penalty in accordance with the CGS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as applicable to the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan shall be dispensed with. From the records produced before me, I find that a summary enquiry has in fact been held and in the said summary enquiry, some students of very tender age have alleged immoral sexual behaviour on the part of the petitioner towards the students and pursuant to the said summary enquiry a report has been submitted by the Inquiry Officer finding the petitioner guilty of such immoral sexual behaviour and it is only on the basis of the said report that the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, new Delhi has passed the impugned order dated 9.4.93 dispensing with the procedure for regular enquiry for imposing major penalty under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and terminating the services of the petitioner. The impugned order dated 9.4.93 of the Commissioner is quoted hereunder in extenso : "ORDER 1. Examined the records. 2.1 am satisfied from the summary inquiry that Shri RP Pathak, Primary Teacher, Kendriya Vidyalayaj Missa Cantt. is guilty of moral turpitude involving sexual offence and exhibition of immoral sexual behaviour towards the complainant students. 3. I am further satisfied that in the instant case evidence already on record establish the prima-facie guilt of the teacher who had an opportunity of presenting his defence before the Inquiry Officer. It will be traumatic experience to make the complainant student depose in a regular inquiry and also be cross examined on such embarrassing allegation, which may, in our present society, injure the reputation of the girl permanently affecting her future life and marriage, etc. 4. Hence considering the aforesaid facts, the procedure for holding regular inquiry for major penalty in terms of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 being neither necessary nor expedient is dispensed with in the present case. 5. Whereas I, DS Mukhopadhyaya, Commissioner, KVS, am satisfied that action under Article 81 (b) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalay a is justified against Sri RP Pathak, Primary Teacher, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Missa Cantonment. It is hereby ordered that his services are terminated with immediate effect and he will be paid the amount due under rules for the notice period. The contents of the full order be communicated to Sri RP Pathak, Primary Teacher, KV, Missa Cantonment and all others concerned. It is hereby ordered that his services are terminated with immediate effect and he will be paid the amount due under rules for the notice period. The contents of the full order be communicated to Sri RP Pathak, Primary Teacher, KV, Missa Cantonment and all others concerned. Sd/D S Mukhopadhy 09.04.1993" From the aforesaid order it is clear that the Commissioner was of the view that the evidence already on record established prima facie guilt on the part of the petitioner and that any regular enquiry as contemplated under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 would expose the complainant students to a lot of embarrassment and traumatic experience and would injure the reputation of the girl student permanently affecting her future life, marriage, etc. The aforesaid view taken by the Commissioner cannot at all be held to be whimsical or arbitrary. Considering the reasons given by the Commissioner in dispensing with the regular enquiry under the Rules, I am unable to accept the submission of Mr, Maheswari that the authorities did not apply their mind to the question to as whether enquiry should or should not be dispensed with on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case. 8. It was then urged by Mr. Maheswari that after the summary enquiry was held, the evidence collected in the said summary inquiry and the report of the summary enquiry were not furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to submit representation or show cause against the said report before the impugned order dated 9.4.93 was passed by the Commissioner terminating his services. Mr. Maheswari therefore submitted that the impugned order dated 9.4.93 was violative of principles of natural justice and was liable to be quashed by this Court. He relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL vs. B Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 725 and of this Court in the case of Dr. ID Pandey vs. Union of India & others, 1996 (2) GLJ 447 for his submission that the petitioner should have been allowed to submit his show cause or representation against the inquiry report before the impugned order dated 9.4.93 was passed by the Commissioner terminating his services, even though his services were terminated under Article 81 (b) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas. Mr Maheswari further submitted that even the charges have not been served on the petitioner before the impugned order dated 9.4.93 was passed contrary to the provisions of Article 83 of the Education Code applicable to Kendriya Vidyalayas. 9. The requirement of serving the charges on a delinquent Government servant is contained in clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. But sub-cause (b) of second proviso to the said clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution provides that where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry, the said clause (2) of Article 311 would apply. Consistent with the said provision, Article 81 (b) of the Education Code applicable to Kendriya Vidyalayas quoted above provides that the procedure prescribed for holding enquiry for imposing major penalty in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as applicable to the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan shall be dispensed where the Commissioner is of the opinion that it is not expedient to hold regular enquiry on account of serious embarrassment to the students or guardians or such other practical difficulties. In the instant case, since the Commissioner has already recorded the reasons in the impugned order dated 9.4.93 quoted above for dispensing with the procedure for holding regular enquiry for imposing major penalty in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which includes the procedure for serving charges on the delinquent employee, I am of the view that in the instant case it was not necessary to serve the charges for misconduct on the petitioner. 10. In the case of Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar (supra), cited by Mr. Maheswari, the Supreme Court examined the question as to whether after Constitution (Forty-second Amendment)Act of 1976, amending clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution, a copy of the enquiry report was required to be served on a delinquent Govt. servant facing disciplinary proceedings, and the Supreme Court after examining the law at length came to the conclusion that even after the said Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act of 1976, a copy of the enquiry report is required to be served on the delinquent Govt. servant facing disciplinary proceedings, and the Supreme Court after examining the law at length came to the conclusion that even after the said Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act of 1976, a copy of the enquiry report is required to be served on the delinquent Govt. servant to enable him to submit his representation to the disciplinary authority against the enquiry report and thereafter the disciplinary authority will take into account the said representation of the delinquent Govt. servant, the enquiry report and the evidence adduced during enquiry and come to his own conclusion as to whether the delinquent Govt. servant was guilty of the charges of misconduct or not. The said decision therefore has no relevance to the present case in which the regular enquiry has been dispensed with, - 11. In the case of Dr. ID Pandey vs. Union of India (supra) cited by Mr. Maheswari, however, Article 81(b) of the Educataion Code applicable to Kendriya Vidyalayas was challenged as untra vires the Constitution and the learned Single Judge of this Court, while upholding the validity of the said Article 81 (b) of the Education Code, held that the rigour of the provisions of the said Article 81(b) could not be evaded with the plea of saving the student and the guardian from embarrassment and that even in the process of summary enquiry there was sufficient scope to give a pre-decisional hearing to the deliquent employee when the decision has civil consequence prejudicial to him so that the aggrieved person has the confidence and satisfaction that he had an opportunity to place his case before the authority. In the said judgment in case of Dr. ID Pandey (supra), however, the learned Single Judge held that the Court need not provide a hard and fast rule regarding adoption of principle of natural justice. In the instant case, the petitioner was asked by the Inquiry Officer, Dr. PC Bhatt, in his letter dated 5.9.90 to offer his comments on the allegations of sexual abuse of the 'girl child'. But in the summary enquiry that was conducted by the Inquiry Officer a lot of evidence was collected from the students and guardians and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the said witness to avoid embarrassment to the complainant students. But in the summary enquiry that was conducted by the Inquiry Officer a lot of evidence was collected from the students and guardians and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the said witness to avoid embarrassment to the complainant students. After the Inquiry Officer submitted the report of the summary enquiry, a copy of the enquiry report was however, not furnished to the petitioner to enable him to make a representation against the said inquiry report and the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalay a Sangathan, New Delhi, passed the impugned order of termination on the basis of the said exparte evidence and inquiry report. Considering the fact that the allegations against the petitioner were moral turpitude involving sexual offence and exhibition of immoral sexual behaviour towards the complainant students, which were of very serious nature, principles of natural justice require that an opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his representation against the evidence that had been collected in the summary inquiry and the report of the said summary inquiry establishing his prima facie guilt on the said allegations. 12. In the circumstances, I remit this matter with a direction to the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi, to ensure that a copy of the report if the summary inquiry along with the evidence collected against the petitioner is sent to the petitioner in a confidential cover within one month from the receipt of a certified copy of this order and within one month from the date of receipt of such inquiry report and the evidence collected in the summary inquiry, the petitioner will submit his representation before the said Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi. The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi then will consider the said representation of the petitioner and pass orders in acccordance with law within one month thereafter and depending upon the final outcome of the orders that are passed by the Commissioner, the petitioner will be paid his salary and allowance in accordance with the Rules. 13. With the aforesaid limited reliefs, this writ petition is disposed of. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.