Augustine George Masih, J. Petitioner, in this case, is a Hindi Teacher, who was appointed on 14.11.1995. On 24.04.2010, FIR No. 87 under Sections 451, 354 and 376 IPC was registered in Police Station Sadar Sirsa. The allegations in the FIR were that the petitioner, who was teaching in Government High School, Shahpur Begu, Sirsa, had committed the above-mentioned offences by sexually exploiting a 17 years old girl student of Class X. Initially, the petitioner started Visiting the house of the girl, who had another sister aged 15 years a class VII student and a brother, on the pretext of asking her mother to help him in getting a room on rent. He had been, thereafter, frequenting the house and after some days, called the elder daughter at his room on 16.02.2010 and gave her a mobile phone and committed rape on her. Again the girl was called under threat on 19.03.2010, which was the last date of the examinations, by stating that she would be declared 'fail' and something wrong would be done with her parents. Frightened, she went to the house of the petitioner, who was a Hindi Teacher, and there again she was raped. She was shown porn films on the mobile and thereafter he committed the heinous crime with her as in the film. Thereafter, she was called twice and the offence of rape was again repeated on her but this was all done under threat and duress. She was again called on 15.04.2010 and when she refused, she was threatened that she would be exposed and immoral pictures would be pasted on the streets after making posters of the same. She took along with her younger sister but on that day, no wrong was committed with her. Out of fear, she did not disclose this fact. On 20.04.2010 on 8 P.M., both the sisters left the house without informing their parents and thereafter, they came to know that they had gone to Delhi and both came back via Hissar. On the registration of the FIR, the District Education Officer, Sirsa was called upon to look into the matter as the news was published in various newspapers. On 20.04.2010 on 8 P.M., both the sisters left the house without informing their parents and thereafter, they came to know that they had gone to Delhi and both came back via Hissar. On the registration of the FIR, the District Education Officer, Sirsa was called upon to look into the matter as the news was published in various newspapers. The District Education Officer enquired into the matter and sent a report dated 02.05.2010 (Annexure R-1), which contained the statements of both the girls, their parents, Head Master of the School, medical report of the elder girl and that of the petitioner and a certified copy of the FIR. On the basis of the allegations made against the petitioner and taking into consideration the statements made by the two girl students, their parents and the medical reports of the victim girl student as also the petitioner, order dated 03.05.2010 (Annexure P-2) was passed by the Director, School Education, Haryana, dismissing the petitioner from service with immediate effect in exercise of powers under Rules 7.2(b) and (3) of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 1987 Rules') read with Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. 2. In the criminal case, which was registered against the petitioner, trial was held, in which all the witnesses resiled which led to the acquittal of the petitioner as there was no evidence against him. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also not recorded and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges framed against him vide order dated 03.09.2010 under Sections 451, 376 IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide judgment dated 09.10.2010 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner, thereafter, submitted a representation dated 20.11.2010 (Annexure P-4) addressed to the District Education Officer, Sirsa and the Director, Primary Education, Haryana, praying for cancellation of the order of the Director dated 03.05.2010. When nothing was heard in response to the representation of the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed assailing the order of dismissal dated 03.05.2010 (Annexure P-2). 3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that a false and concocted FIR was registered against the petitioner at the behest of the father of two girls. When nothing was heard in response to the representation of the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed assailing the order of dismissal dated 03.05.2010 (Annexure P-2). 3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that a false and concocted FIR was registered against the petitioner at the behest of the father of two girls. The termination of the services of the petitioner is in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India as neither any charge-sheet was issued nor any departmental enquiry held and straightway, an order of dismissal has been passed against the petitioner. He contends that present is a case where the petitioner has been deprived of the right of hearing and the principles of natural justice have been violated. The allegations against the petitioner were not of such a nature where a departmental enquiry could not be held against him and he could not have been given an opportunity to defend himself. There was no ground for dispensing with the holding of the enquiry and the conclusion drawn by the Director, School Education, Haryana-respondent No. 2 for coming to a conclusion that the conducting of a regular enquiry, as provided for under the 1987 Rules, would not be practicable, is not sustainable nor can it be said to be in consonance with the law of the land. Petitioner has been punished unheard which violates the basic and core of the principles of fair justice. He contends that the order of dismissal is violative of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi, 2010(3) S.C.T. 578. Reliance has also been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajinder Singh vs. Board of School Education, Haryana and another, 96(4) RSJ 417, where it has been held that dismissal from service without taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner would amount to violation of the Statutory Rules, as mandated under Rule 7.2(b) of the 1987 Rules, which should lead to setting aside of the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the report of the District Education Officer, Sirsa dated 02.05.2010 (Annexure R-1). 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the report of the District Education Officer, Sirsa dated 02.05.2010 (Annexure R-1). On the basis of the said report, which contains the statements of two girls, the parents of the girls as also the medical reports of the petitioner as also of the elder girl student (victim), it has been contended that the punishing authority, while passing the impugned order dated 03.05.2010, had looked into the conduct of the petitioner apart from the fact that the holding of the regular enquiry would not be reasonably practicable as it would cause further mental agony to the two minor girls and bring them a social stigma. He contends that the situation was such where immediate action had to be taken where a 'Guru' has turned into a 'beast' and committed the heinous act involving moral turpitude. It has not only tarnished the image of the school but the department as a whole where the efforts were being made to educate girl students and to avoid their dropping of the studies after the initial schooling. There was a large scale un-trust amongst the villagers in the locality and if immediate action would not have been taken, the parents would have withdrawn their girl children from the schools. There were justifiable reasons for not holding a regular enquiry and thus, the exercise of powers by the competent authority under Rule 7.2(b) and (3) of the 1987 rules read with Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, was in accordance with law. In support of these contentions, Mr. Nehra, learned Sr. DAG, Haryana, has placed reliance upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Tulsi Ram Patel, 1985(3) SCC 398 as has been referred to and the conclusions drawn in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satyavir Singh and others vs. The Union of India and others, 1985(4) SCC 252 , where it has been held that dispensing with the departmental enquiry can be resorted to where it is amply clear that a situation makes the holding of an enquiry not reasonably practicable which can even arise at a stage subsequent when such a decision is taken. 5. 5. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kuldip Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 1996(10) SCC 659 , where it has been held that it is for the competent authority to reach to a conclusion taking into consideration the situation prevailing whether it is not reasonably and practicably possible to hold a departmental enquiry if the same is based on some material and sufficient reasons. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of a Single Bench of this Court in CWP No. 13608 of 2009 titled as Surinder Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 03.09.2009, wherein almost similar circumstances dispensing with the enquiry and proceeding to dismiss the Teacher from service have been upheld. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the records of the case. 7. The facts, as they are unfurled in the present case, projects a grim picture where a Teacher has shown his wild instinctive propensities of a beast raping and outraging the modesty of a 17 years' old girl student of his own school. 'Guru' has always been respected and looked upon with reverence and for guidance, who is supposed to protect and show the child the way of life but present is a case where the petitioner has contaminated the pious relationship of 'Guru' and 'Shishya'. The faith in the relationship has been crushed with impunity with protector turning into the exploiter of an innocent child. Nothing more requires to be said when the statement given by the elder girl student is gone through, which was recorded by the District Education Officer on 01.05.2010 and has been duly signed by her in presence of her mother, younger sister, father and brother apart from the senior departmental officials i.e. the District Education Officer, Sirsa, Deputy District Education Officer-II, Deputy District Education Officer-III and Principal, Bhurewala who have certified that it was given in their presence. This statement has been corroborated by her sister, which is also appended along with the enquiry report. The statement of father of the two girls was recorded there which was written and was read over to him by his son and thereafter, he had put his thumb mark with signatures of his son. This statement has been corroborated by her sister, which is also appended along with the enquiry report. The statement of father of the two girls was recorded there which was written and was read over to him by his son and thereafter, he had put his thumb mark with signatures of his son. The thumb impressions of his wife, apart form the officials who were present there, were also taken. All these statements besides facts and circumstances prevailing at the relevant point of time clearly indicate the beastly act committed by the petitioner upon the helpless and innocent minor girl student of Class X. 8. The statement of the victim indicates that on four different occasions, she was sexually exploited and raped by the petitioner. The petitioner had initially lured her by presenting her with a mobile phone and then committed the heinous crime. Thereafter, when the girl student did not want to indulge in the heinous act, the same was not accepted by the petitioner and thereafter threatened her that she will be declared 'fail' in the exam and further that he would do something wrong to her parents. It would not be out of way to mention her that the father of the girl student was only a labourer and, therefore, the threat on the part of the teacher was quite real. Out of fear, she went to his room and there he used the said mobile showing her the porn films and according to those films, he committed the rape on her. This shows the mind-set of the petitioner. There were further threats given by the petitioner at a later stage when she refused to come by stating that he would paste immoral pictures of the girl student in the streets by converting the same into posters. This shows the exploitation of a helpless girl student at the hands of the teacher. He has not only tarnished the image of a teacher in the eyes of the society but it can well be imagined as to the bad impression and scar it would have left on the mind of the innocent child, which cannot be wiped off easily. 9. He has not only tarnished the image of a teacher in the eyes of the society but it can well be imagined as to the bad impression and scar it would have left on the mind of the innocent child, which cannot be wiped off easily. 9. As per the reply filed by the respondents, the local inhabitants of the village raised widespread protests and there was also great resentment amongst the people of the area over this act and conduct of the petitioner, which was reflected not only in the protests but the local and national newspapers published articles on this heinous crime, which was committed by the petitioner. The Commissioner and Director General, School Education, Haryana, has thereafter directed the District Education Officer, Sirsa vide order dated 27.04.2010 to submit a detailed report in the matter, in pursuance of which, the report was submitted by the District Education Officer along with the statements of the victim, her sister, parents, the Head Master of the School and the medical reports along with the copy of the FIR. 10. When seen in this context, the order dated 03.05.2010 (Annexure P-2), which has taken into consideration all these facts and circumstances, the conclusion drawn therein fully justifies the order of dismissal of the petitioner by dispensing with the holding of enquiry in exercise of powers under Rule 7.2(b) and (3) of the 1987 Rules read with Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. The reasons assigned by the Director, School Education, Haryana and the conclusions drawn therein read as follows: I am totally flabbergasted to read the fact finding report of the District Education Officer and the news items which have appeared in Section of the Press about the heinous, beastly and deplorable act of moral turpitude of raping and outraging the modesty of two minor girls by Sh. Anil Kumar, Hindi Teacher, Govt. High School, Shahpur Begu (Sirsa). I can not describe in words what feelings rise in heart that this vulture has not only raped the girls student repeatedly but has also brought a permanent blot on them which has rendered them faceless in the school and living area. The teachers, authors and writers are the ideals and mirrors of the society which places them in high esteem. The teachers, authors and writers are the ideals and mirrors of the society which places them in high esteem. However, this teacher has committed such a heinous crime which has not only tarnished the image of the school but has lowered the image of the State of Haryana which is making all out efforts to achieve excellence in the field of educating girl students. I am of the considered resolve that there seems to be not an iota of leniency to deal with beast in any other manner except to throw him out of service at once so that this should prove an eye opening example for others who dare not indulge in such type of act of moral turpitude with minor girl student. In view of the true and un-rebuttal facts involved in this case, I have come to conclusion that conducting a regular enquiry and following the procedure of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987 at this stage would further cause of mental agony to the two minor girls and will bring them a social stigma. Since the act done by Mr. Anil Kumar is a very serious one, I under the powers of Rule 7.2(b) and (3) of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987 r/w Art. 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, order dismissal of Mr. Anil Kumar, Hindi Teacher from service with immediate effect. 11. I am in agreement with the conclusions drawn by the punishing authority, which are based on material facts and the reasons assigned are sufficient which would fulfil the mandate of law. In Kuldip Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paras 8 and 9, has held as follows:- 8. Anil Kumar, Hindi Teacher from service with immediate effect. 11. I am in agreement with the conclusions drawn by the punishing authority, which are based on material facts and the reasons assigned are sufficient which would fulfil the mandate of law. In Kuldip Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paras 8 and 9, has held as follows:- 8. Proviso (b) to Article 311(2) says that the enquiry contemplated by clause (2) need not be held "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 enquiry." Clause (3) of Article 311 expressly provides that "if, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, the question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final." These provisions have been the subject matter of consideration by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel [1985 Suppl. (2) S.C.R. 131]. It would be appropriate to notice a few relevant holdings in the said judgment: Before denying a government servant his constitutional right to an enquiry, the first consideration would be whether the conduct of the concerned government servant is such as justifies the penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. Once that conclusion is reached and the condition specified in the relevant clause of the second proviso is satisfied, that proviso becomes applicable and the government servant is not entitled to an enquiry (p. 205)...it would also not be reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry where an atmosphere of violence or of general indiscipline and insubordination prevails, and it is immaterial whether the concerned government servant is or is not a party to bringing about such an atmosphere...The reasonable practicability of holding an inquiry is a matter of assessment to be made by the disciplinary authority. Such authority is generally on the spot and knows what is happening. Such authority is generally on the spot and knows what is happening. It is because the disciplinary authority is the best judge of this that clause (3) of Article 311 makes the decision of the disciplinary authority on this question of the disciplinary authority by Article 311(3) is not binding upon the court so far as its power of judicial review is concerned (p. 270)...Where a government servant is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank by applying clause or an analogous provision of the service rules and he approaches either the High Court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32, the court will interfere on grounds well established in law for the exercise of power of judicial review in matters where administrative discretion is exercised. It will consider whether clause (b) or an analogous provision in the service rules was properly applied or not... In examining the relevancy of the reasons, the court will consider the situation which according to the disciplinary authority made it come to the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry...In considering the relevancy of the reasons given by the disciplinary authority, the court will not, however, sit in judgment over them like a court of first appeal (p. 273-274). 9. The judgment also stresses that very often a person dealt with under any of the three clauses in the second proviso to Article 311(2) has a right of appeal where the correctness of the decision taken by the appropriate authority will be subject to review-apart, of course, from the remedy of judicial review provided in the Constitution. 12. In Satyavir Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 124 of the said judgment, held as follows:- 124. The first point was that the orders of suspension showed that a disciplinary inquiry was in fact contemplated and, if so, nothing had happened between the date of the orders of suspension and the date of the orders of dismissal to come to the conclusion that the inquiry was not reasonably practicable. The first point was that the orders of suspension showed that a disciplinary inquiry was in fact contemplated and, if so, nothing had happened between the date of the orders of suspension and the date of the orders of dismissal to come to the conclusion that the inquiry was not reasonably practicable. (Each order or suspension stated that the concerned employee was being suspended in the exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 10(1) of the said Rules because a disciplinary proceeding against him under Rule 14 of the said Rules was contemplated.) Clause (a) of Rule 10(1) confers power upon a disciplinary authority to place the government servant under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending. Rule 14 prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalties. One of the major penalties set out in Rule 11 is the penalty or dismissal from service. It is thus clear that at the date of the orders of suspension disciplinary proceedings against the Appellants was in contemplation. This however, does not mean that the situation will continue to be the same and that at no time thereafter will the holding of the inquiry become "not reasonably practicable". As pointed out in Tulsiram Patel's Case [1985] 3 S.C.C. 398, it is not necessary that a situation which makes the holding of an inquiry not reasonably practicable should exist before the disciplinary inquiry is initiated, because a situation which renders the holding of an inquiry not reasonably practicable can come into being even during the course of an inquiry. The affidavits filed in the High Court clearly show that the situation had so changed after the orders of suspension were issued against the appellants that it was not reasonably practicable to hold any inquiry against the Appellants. The all-India pen-down strike was spreading. More and more centres in India were joining in the said strike. The position was fast deteriorating. Employees were being instigated into further acts of indiscipline and insubordination and loyal employees and senior officers were being intimidated. Meetings and demonstrations were regularly being held within the office premises and their precincts and there was no possibility of any witness coming forward to give evidence against the Appellants who were said to have taken a leading part in this agitation. Meetings and demonstrations were regularly being held within the office premises and their precincts and there was no possibility of any witness coming forward to give evidence against the Appellants who were said to have taken a leading part in this agitation. It is also pertinent to note that when the first batch of dismissal orders was served upon some of the Appellants on December 8, 1980, the pen-down strike was called off on December 9, 1980. In such a situation as was then prevailing, prompt and urgent action was required to bring the situation under control. As pointed out in Tulsiram Patel's Case, [1985] 3 S.C.C. 398, sometimes not taking prompt action may result in the trouble spreading and the situation worsening and at times becoming uncontrollable, and may at times be also construed by the trouble-makers and agitators as a sign of weakness on the part of the authorities and encourage them to step up the tempo of their activities or agitation. The affidavits filed in the High Court clearly show that this is exactly what happened when the suspension orders were issued and that what was required was prompt and urgent action against those who were considered to be the ring leaders and that once such action was taken the situation improved and started becoming normal. 13. In view of the above, the law being very clear that for coming to a conclusion with regard to it being not reasonably and practicably possible to hold departmental enquiry, what is required to be seen is that there must be some material and sufficient reasons for coming to such a conclusion. Insufficiency of the material for reaching such a conclusion would not be relevant and the Courts are only required to see if there were some materials and sufficient reasons for reaching such a conclusion. At the time of dispensing of an enquiry, the situation, which makes the holding of an enquiry not reasonably practicable, should exist and this power can even be exercised during the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding after its initial stage as well as a situation, which renders the holding of an enquiry not reasonably practicable, can come into being even during the course of an enquiry. 14. Present is a case where the situation was such that the immediate action was required to be taken. 14. Present is a case where the situation was such that the immediate action was required to be taken. The material was available on record and the reasons were sufficient enough which would justify the decision of the punishing authority for coming to a conclusion that it was not reasonably and practicably possible to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The judgment of this Court in Surinder Singh's case (supra), in similar facts and circumstances, also supports the conclusions drawn by this Court in the present case. 15. In the case of Mahaveer C. Singhvi (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, an employee was, during probation, discharged by an order simpliciter but the said discharge was based on grounds of mis-conduct. There was no decision taken by the competent authority for dispensing with the enquiry as required under the Constitution. In the case of Rajinder Singh (supra) of this Court, the employee was dismissed from service merely on the basis of his conviction in a criminal case whereas the mandate of the Statutory Rules was that the conduct of the delinquent employee, which led to his conviction, was required to be considered by the punishing authority to conclude that it was such as to render his further retention in public service unjustifiable. Both these judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable to the case in hand either on facts or on the principles, as laid down in those judgments and, therefore, would make no difference with regard to the conclusion, as has been drawn by this Court referred to above. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. ___