ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the parties agree that this petitioner may be disposed of finally at the motion stage itself, without formally admitting the same. We, accordingly, based on the aforesaid agreement between the parties, dispose of the petition today itself finally. 2. The short and only point involved for consideration in this case revolves round the constitutional provision contained in Sub-clause (b) of the second proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the constitution of India which permits a competent authority empowered to remove a person from service, to dispense with the requirement of holding an enquiry if for reasons to be recorded in writing, such an authority is satisfied that the holding of such an enquiiy is not reasonably practicable. 3. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner at the relevant time was work- ing as a school teacher. The allegation against him was that he indulged in an unbecoming and immoral action of writing love letters to one of his girl students and also attempted to seduce her. It is the admitted case of the respondents that based on, what they termed as "summary enquiry", the petitioner was awarded the extreme penalty of termination of his service by the impugned order dated 8th Feb. 2001. It. is also admitted case of the respondents that a proper enquiry as contemplated under Clause (2) of Article 311 was not held in as much as neither any char-gesheet, formal or otherwise, was served upon the petitioner nor was he admittedly given any opportunity of hearing or defending himself in the course on any enquiry. Why was an enquiry as contemplated under Clause (2) of Article 311 not held and why was he removed from service without having held any such enquiry has been explained the course of the impugned order. The explanation runs like this:-- "And whereas, the undersigned is further satisfied that the procedure of holding a regular departmental inquiry as per CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, is not expedient in this case as the same may cause serious embarrassment to the girl student and her parents. As such holding a regular inquiry is dispensed with. The evidence on record establish to guilt of the teacher and hence the continuance of Sh. B.P. Yadav in a co-education residential institution like JNV is prejudicial to the interest of the girl students and the Vidyalaya." 4. As such holding a regular inquiry is dispensed with. The evidence on record establish to guilt of the teacher and hence the continuance of Sh. B.P. Yadav in a co-education residential institution like JNV is prejudicial to the interest of the girl students and the Vidyalaya." 4. As it emerges, and as is clearly seen, the only reason assigned based whereupon the competent authority came to a finding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a regular departmental enquiry was that the same may cause serious embarrassment to the girl and her parents. In what way and in which manner would such an embarrassment be caused, the competent authority has not explained in the order. We may, however, infer that what the Authority had in mind by saying so could be the fact that the girl student and her parents being asked to depose before the Enquiry Officer, subject themselves to cross- examination by the delinquent officer and go through all the motions required for the recording of such a deposition. Possibly there should not be any other embarrassment likely to be caused to the girl or her parents which the competent authority had in mind while citing this as a ground and reason for coming to the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicably to hold a departmental enquiry. 5. If a person is facing a charge involving moral turpitude, undoubtedly principles of natural Justice demands that the charge is proved beyond all reasonably doubts. This requirement of law becomes doubly stringent when no less a persons than a school teacher is charged with an extreme immoral act of having indulged in writing love letters to no one other than his own girl student and in attempting to seduce her. Such a person, the school teacher, if found guilty of such a charge, has to live with this stigma. It is a very dark and blemished spot upon his career and for the rest of his life he has to live with it. The stigma on a school teacher indulging in a most unbecoming act of writing love letters to his girl student and also to seduce her is socially and morally speaking even a very severe blot on the members of his family. It is no ordinary social stigma, it is a social stigma of the worst order. The stigma on a school teacher indulging in a most unbecoming act of writing love letters to his girl student and also to seduce her is socially and morally speaking even a very severe blot on the members of his family. It is no ordinary social stigma, it is a social stigma of the worst order. In this background, therefore, castigating and holding such a person guilty of such a charge without holding a regular departmental enquiry, without serving upon him a chargesheet. without affording him any opportunity of being heard and without his proper participation in such an enquiry, where he could legitimately exercise his right of defence, and all these on a specious plea that holding of such an enquiry was not practicable because it might cause "serious embarrassment to the girl and her parents" cannot be countenances on any legal or constitutional ground. We are quite sure in our minds that if the competent authority meant that by their being asked to depose, serious embarrassment would be caused to the girl and her parents, such thinking on the part of the competent authority was totally wrong and urtenable in law. Evidence in such cases has to be taken. It is an inescapable requirement of law. There is no substitute for this. If you allege and accuse a school teacher of indulging in such an immoral act and propose to remove him from service, you have to prove the charge against him; even if it means calling the girl and her parents to depose and what is wrong with that? 6. It is commonly known and widely understood that departmental enquiries are not open to public. They are pure and simple domestic enquiries. No-one other then the participants and the persons directly connected with the holding of such enquiries are permitted to attend the same. In such background, therefore, saying that embarrassment would be caused to the girl and her parents only because they might have to record their deposition, is a misplace notion on the part of the competent authority. Actually we need not to say so, but if in any situation any adverse circumstance arises, the competent authority or the Enquiry Officer can always make sure that the honour and dignity of all the witnesses including the girl or her parents is protected in all respects. Actually we need not to say so, but if in any situation any adverse circumstance arises, the competent authority or the Enquiry Officer can always make sure that the honour and dignity of all the witnesses including the girl or her parents is protected in all respects. We are quite sure that a witness whether she is the girl student or her parents are not put to any embarrassment merely because they are called upon to depose before an Inquiry Officer with respect to an act which is the subject matter of an allegation emanating from them and which is based on a situation where the girl is alleged to be affected. If the authority meant, by referring to "serious embarrassment" any other fact situation, the same has not been spelt out in the order. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion, that in the facts and circumstances of this case it was not open to the competent authority to dispense with the requirement of holding an inquiry as provided under Sub- clause (b) of the second proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 8. The learned Tribunal, according to us, was therefore not right in dismissing the application of writ petitioner because it had not perhaps appreciated properly and correctly the true spirit and contours of the aforesaid constitutional provision as contained in Article 311. 9. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 8th February, 2001 and judgment of the Tribunal under challenge in this petition are both set aside. Based upon the aforesaid observations the respondents are given full permission and absolute liberty in initiating a proper inquiry in view of the allegation against the petitioner and to take the same to its logical conclusion and to pass appropriate consequential orders on the merits of the case in accordance with law. Since the issue has now been hanged fire for a long time, we direct that the proceedings be concluded very expeditiously and in any case within a period of six months. 10. We direct the petitioner to render his fullest co-operation and offer his fullest participation in the course of the enquiry. Since the issue has now been hanged fire for a long time, we direct that the proceedings be concluded very expeditiously and in any case within a period of six months. 10. We direct the petitioner to render his fullest co-operation and offer his fullest participation in the course of the enquiry. Any non-cooperation or non- participation by the petitioner in the enquiry or at any stage of the proceedings shall be treated as a lapse on his part entailing appropriate consequential action against him. _