MIHIR KUMAR JHA, J.:–This case has already been dismissed by an order of this Court dated 9.7.2013, which reads as follows:— “Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 08.05.2013, passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Case No. 857 of 2012, affirming the termination of service of the petitioner on the post of Nagar Shikshak passed by the Executive Officer of Sugauli Nagar Panchayat, East Champaran, Motihari. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to take into account the observations made by this Court in the order dated 06.04.2012 passed in C.W.J.C No. 6781 of 2012. He has further assailed the findings of the Tribunal on different grounds. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has supported the impugned order of the Tribunal. He has also explained that the petitioner was facing some very serious allegations of misbehaving with the girl students of the School, where he was posted as a Nagar Shikshak. According to him, the principles of natural justice were followed before passing the impugned order of termination of his service and in fact the Tribunal has gone into all relevant aspects in its well considered order running into 14 pages. This Court has carefully perused the materials on record and would find that the order of the Tribunal would require no interference specially when the two earlier attempts on the part of the petitioner to prevent the respondents from giving effect to the action/order to be taken against the petitioner despite being brought to the notice of this Court, in his two earlier writ applications namely, C.W.J.C No. 2617 of 2012 dismissed on 08.02.2012 and C.W.J.C No. 6781 of 2012 disposed of on 06.04.2012, had not succeeded. The overemphasized reliance placed by the petitioner on the order of this Court dated 06.04.2012, directing the Tribunal to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner and dispose it off after complying the principles of natural justice, prima facie, seems to have been complied by the Tribunal by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The overemphasized reliance placed by the petitioner on the order of this Court dated 06.04.2012, directing the Tribunal to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner and dispose it off after complying the principles of natural justice, prima facie, seems to have been complied by the Tribunal by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This application, accordingly, is dismissed but the detailed reasons shall be only recorded by this Court after perusing the records of the two earlier writ application filed by the petitioner being C.W.J.C No. 2617 of 2012 and C.W.J.C No. 6781 of 2012.” 2. At the outset, let it be noted that the records of CWJC No. 2617 of 2012 disposed of on 8.2.2012 and CWJC No. 6781 disposed of on 6.4.2012, both of whom were filed by the petitioner earlier in relation to the same matter, could be traced only recently and this Court, therefore, having perused both of them is now recording its reasons in support of its earlier order of dismissal of the writ application. 3. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:— “1A. For issuance of appropriate writ/order or direction quashing the order dated 8.5.2013 passed in Case no. 857/2012 by Sri C.K. Singh, Member, of District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Motihari, District- East Champran by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected as contained in Annexure-1 to this writ application. B. For issuance of appropriate writ/order or direction commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on his post of Nagar Shikshak in Government Middle School (Boys) Sugauli, District East Champaran and also for payment of honorarium to him.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforementioned prayer, had basically concentrated on the aspect that the impugned order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Motihari, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal is primarily bad and thus unsustainable either on fact or in law because it has not gone into the aspect that the alleged enquiry against the petitioner leading to his removal from service having been conducted behind his back is violative of principle of natural justice. He has also submitted that the order of the Tribunal even otherwise is not sustainable because it is more or less based on mere surmises and conjectures. 5. He has also submitted that the order of the Tribunal even otherwise is not sustainable because it is more or less based on mere surmises and conjectures. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State had supported the impugned order of Tribunal and has submitted that the petitioner, despite being a teacher, was facing some very serious charges of immoral character and the same having been found to be correct in discreet enquiry conducted by the authorities had led to termination of his service wherein the principles of natural justice to the permissible extent was followed and thus the impugned order of Tribunal approving such order of termination of service of the petitioner should not be interferred by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Before this court would go into the aforesaid rival submissions of both the parties, it would be necessary to take into stock some of the relevant facts. The petitioner, holding the qualification of Alim (equivalent to Graduation), was appointed as a Nagar Shikshak in the year 2007 and was posted in Government Middle School (Boys) at Sugauli (hereinafter the School) in the district of East Champaran. While the petitioner was continuing in service, a petition containing a very serious allegation of his immoral conduct was filed on 17.11.2011 by as many as 40 girl students who had complained that the petitioner was indulging into indecent behavior including their physical abuse. 7. Let it be kept in mind that in such application dated 17.11.2011 as many as 37 girl students of the school had made very shocking allegation revealing the misbehavior on the part of the petitioner which included not only their limitations of putting on record of indecent behavior by the petitioner but also their apprehension that if they could reveal all the things against the petitioner they could be subjected to also any untoward incident including their continuation as students of the school. 8. 8. What is still more significant to be noted here itself is that the aforesaid complaint petition of 37 girl students dated 17.11.2011 was addressed in the name of Block Education Extension Officer, Sugauli through the Headmaster of the school and the Headmaster of the school had forwarded the same to the Block Education Officer on the same day with his endorsement that the allegations made by the girl students were correct and, therefore, appropriate action should be taken against the petitioner. In order to make this issue more clear, this Court find it necessary to reproduce the copy of the complaint of 40 girl students with the recommendation of the Headmaster, which reads as follows:— ^^lsok esa] iz[k.M f'k{kk izlkj inkf/kdkjh] lqxkSyh }kjk iz/kkuk/;kid jk0 e0 fo|ky;] lqxkSyh] ckyd egk'k;] uez fuosnu ds lkFk ge lHkh Nk=k,a vkidks fuEu ckrksa dks tkudkjh ns jgh gS& ¼d½ vkids fo|ky; esa tehy v[rj uke dk ,d uxj f'k{kd gS] tks vR;Ur pfj=ghu f'k{kd gSA ¼[k½ og ge Nk=kvksa ds lkFk vf'yy ,oa vHknz O;ogkj djrk gS jkLrs esa vHknz O;ogkj ,oa vHknz ckrsa djrk gSA Ldwy esa ,dkar ikdj gkFk idM+ ysrk gSA ¼x½ bl ckr dks ysdj cgqr Nk=k,a Ldwy vkuk NksM+ fn;k gSA vkSj geyksx cgqr Hk;fHkr gSA ¼?k½ bldk ;g xyr dk;Z cgqr fnuksa ls tkjh gSA ysfdy geyksx 'keZ ds ekjs dg ugha ik jgs Fks ftlls geyksx dh i<+kbZ ckf/kr gks jgh gSA ¼M-½ blls fo|ky; dk ekgkSy cgqr [kjkc gks x;k gSA ¼p½ ge Nk=k,a vius vius ?kj bl ckr dks 'keZ ds ekjs ugha dg ik jgh gSa vxj ge yksx dgrs gS rks fo|ky; esa dksbZ ?kVuk,a ?kfVr gks ldrh gSA vr% Jheku~ ls izkFkZuk gS fd mijksDr ckrksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, ge lHkh Nk=kvksa ds Hkfo"; dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, lHkh Nk=kvksa dks Hkfo"; dks [;ky j[ksaA fo|ky; dk ekgkSy Bhd cuk;s ftlls viuk iBu&ikBu Hk; eqDr dj ldsA lkFk gh tehy v[rj ij mfpr iz'kklfud dkjokbZ dh tk,A vkidk leLr Nk=k,a 1- latuk dqekjh] 2- jkS'kuh dqekjh 3- lqftrk dqekjh 4- iqtk dqekjh 5- esudk dqekjh 6- izfrek dqekjh 7- iwue dqekjh 8- yyhrk dqekjh 9- laxhrk dqekjh 10- latw dqekjh 11- jkSuh dqekjh 12- dkty dqekjh** 13- 'kksHkk dqekjh 14- vkjrh dqekjh 15- pkUnk dqekjh 16- iwtk dqekjh 17- jkuh dqekjh 18- fueZyk dqekjh 19- fiz;adk dqekjh 20- lqfurk dqekjh 21- Jas;k dqekjh 22- Lusgk dqekjh 23- vafrHkk dqekjh 24- yky'kk dqekjh 25- latq dqekjh 26- fueZyk dqekjh 27- js.kw dqekjh 28- foUnw dqekjh 29- yfyrk dqekjh 30- lfjrk dqekjh 31- vkjrh dqekjh 32- fiz;k dqekjh 33- fiz;adk dqekjh 34- dfj'ek dqekjh 35- xhrk dqekjh 36- cfcrk dqekjh 37- vfurk dqekjh 38- :ik dqekjh** (underlining for emphasis) 9. On receipt of such an application, it appears that the Block Education Officer had conducted a discreet fact finding enquiry on 18.11.2011 and, on the basis of statement made before her by two of complaining girl students, namely, Sanjana Kumari and Rasmi Roshni Kumari as also from other teachers of the school, she had found substance in such shocking allegation made against the petitioner and, as such she on 18.11.2011 in her separate letter had recommended to the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Motihari to take immediate action against the petitioner in terms of the Nagar Shikshak Niyojan Niyamawali Evam Seva Sart Niyamawali, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) inasmuch as, in her opinion, continuation of the petitioner could be detrimental to the academic atmosphere and teaching work in the school. 10. 10. For a better understanding of the nature of seriousness of the allegation against the petitioner made by 37 girl students as found to be true in the spot verification by way of enquiry of the Block Education Officer, it would be also relevant to quote the aforesaid letter containing enquiry report of the Block Education Officer dated 18.11.2011, which reads as follows:— ^^izs"kd%& xkSgj vatqe iz[k.M f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] lqxkSyh] iwohZ pEikj.kA lsok esa] ftyk dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh ¼LFkkiuk½ iwohZ pEikj.k] eksfrgkjhA lqxkSyh] fnukad 18-11-2011 foz"k;& Jh tehy v[rj] uxj f'k{kd jk0e0fo0] lqxkSyh ckyd vapy lqxkSyh ds fo:n~/k Nk=kvksa }kjk fn;s x;s vH;kosnu ds lEcU/k esaA egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k; lqfpr djuk gS fd jk0e0fo0 lqxkSyh ckyd ds dqN Nk=kvkas }kjk Jh tehy v[rj uxj f'k{kd ij v'yhy ,oa vHknz O;ogkj djus gsrq vH;kosnu dy fnukad 17-11-2011 dks 3-30 cts vijkg~u esa v|ksgLrk{kjh dks fn;k x;k] ftlij izHkkjh izèkkukè;kid }kjk l[r dkjZokbZ djus gsr vxzlkfjr fd;k x;k gSA oLrqfLFkfr dh tkap gsrq vkt fnukad 18-11-2011 ls lacaf/kr Nk=kvksa ls iwNrkN dh x;h tkap ds Øe esa lqJh latuk dqekjh firk Jh vt; flag oxZ 8 ,oa lqJh jkS'kuh dqekjh firk Jh vt; flg oxZ 7 us crk;k fd vkosnu esa fyf[kr ckrsa Jh tehy v[rj uxj f'k{kd ds }kjk fd;k tkrk gSA iqu% mifLFkr lHkh f'k{kdksa ls iwNrkN dh x;h f'k{kdksa us crk;k dh bl vk'k; dh tkudkjh geyksxksa dks Hkh lqJh latuk dqekjh ds }kjk feyhA vr% Jheku~ ls vuqjks/k gS fd Jh tehy v[rj uxj f'k{kd ij mfpr dkjZokbZ djrs gq, uxj f'k{kd fu;kstu fu;ekoyh ,oa lsok 'krZ] 2006 ,oa la'kkasfèkr fu;ekoyh 2008 ds vUrxZr lsok lefiZr gsrq dkjZokbZ dh tk ldrh gS] D;ksafd ,sls uxj f'k{kd dks fo|ky; esa cus jgus ls iBu ikBu ,oa 'kS{kf.kd ekgkSy ij izfrdqy vlj iM+ jgk gSA KkrO; gks fd Jh v[rj fnukad 08-11-2011 ls izèkkukè;kid dks vkosnu nsdj fpfdRlh; vodk'k esa FksA iqu% fcuk iz/kkuk/;kid dks lwpuk fd, ,d vkosnu nsdj bXuq izf'k{k.k esa pys x;sA fo'oklHkktu g0@& ¼xksgj vatqe½ iz[k.M f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh lqxkSyh] iqohZ pEikj.k vuqyXud ¼1½ Nk=kvksa dk vH;kosnu & ,d izfr ¼2½ tehy v[rj dk vkosnu & nks izfr** (underlining for emphasis) 11. Let it be kept in mind that from the records of the first writ petition of the petitioner namely C.W.J.C. No. 2617 of 2012 it is found that while this report of the Block Education Officer dated 18.11.2011 was still pending for consideration and no action really was taken on the same, it was the petitioner who on 30.11.2011 on his own, having come to know of aforesaid complaint of the girl students and the adverse report of the Headmaster and the Block Education Officer, had filed a representation before the District Education Officer that any action should be taken against him after holding a thorough enquiry. This application dated 30.11.2011 of the petitioner itself went to reveal that a police case was lodged against the petitioner being Sugauli P.S. Case No. 340 of 2011 on 17.11.2011 alleging misbehaviour and an attempt to outrage the modesty of Sanjana Kumari the girl student. The petitioner however had sought to explain that such police case was false because at the relevant point of time of occurrence in the F.I.R. he was actually undergoing training of IGNOU from 15.11.2011 to 19.11.2011 at Motihari. He had further stated that on completion of the training at IGNOU, he became ill and was on medical leave between 21.11.2011 to 30.11.2011 and in this period, not only he was made falsely accused in the criminal case but the Headmaster of the school had concocted a false allegation of his immoral behavior by getting a joint application of the girl students on which he had also written that he had enquired into the matter and had found the occurrence to be true. 12. Thus, it was the application filed by the petitioner on 30.11.2011 as well as the report of the Block Education Officer dated 18.11.2011 on the complaint of the girl students the whole things were examined by the office of District Education Officer who, having found the condition of the academic atmosphere of the school to have been vitiated on account of the presence of the petitioner, had directed for deputation of the petitioner from his own school i.e. Madhya Vidyalaya, Suguli to Government Primary School Ganesh Vidya Mandir, Sugauli vide his order dated 7.12.2011 which clearly mentions of his being removed from school by way of deputation to another school on the ground of administrative exigencies. Let it be noted that this document has not been enclosed with the present writ application but form part of his earlier 2nd writ application, CWJC No. 6781 of 2012 as would be more clear from the facts to be recorded in the chronological order on the basis of analysis of the pleadings of all the three writ applications. 13. Be that as it may, after the petitioner was deputed out of this school and sent to another school on 7.12.2011 and got relieved only on 23.12.2011 that the District Education Officer, Motihari vide his letter dated 6.1.2012 had directed the petitioner to file his show-cause reply to the allegations made by the girl students found to be true in the recommendation of the Headmaster as also separately examined in the enquiry report of the Block Education Officer who being herself a lady officer had claimed to have enquired the matter with the girl students as also from other teachers before recording the allegation against the petitioner to be substantiated. This show-cause notice dated 6.1.2012 had clearly spelt out both with regard to the complaint of the girl students as also enquiry report of the Block Education Officer and the petitioner was given a week’s time to file his explanation as to why he should not be removed from service for vitiating the atmosphere of the school and breaking the well established principle of a healthy relationship between the teacher and the students as would be more evident from the contents of the show-cause notice dated 6.1.2012. All these reports infact was made part of the show-cause notice sent to the petitioner on 6.1.2012 which reads as follows:— ^^dk;kZy;&ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] iwohZ pEikj.k] eksfrgkjhA ¼LFkkiuk 'kk[kk½ i=kad fu0 30@ izs"kd] ftyk dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh ¼LFkkiuk½ iwohZ pEikj.k] eksfrgkjhA lsok esa] Jh tehy v[rj] uxj f'k{kd] jk0e0fo0lqxkSyh] iwohZ pEikj.kA eksfrgkjh] fnukad 06@01@12 fo"k;&Li"Vhdj.k ds laca/k esaA egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d iz[kaM f'k{kk inkfèkdkjh lqxkSyh ds i=kad 573 fnukad 18-11-2011 dh Nk;kizfr layXu djrs gq, dguk gS fd fo|ky; dh Nk=k latuk dqekjh }kjk iz[kaM f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] lqxkSyh dks ifjokn i= fn;k x;k] ftlesa vkjksi yxk;k x;k gS fd mDr Nk=k ds lkFk vkids }kjk uktk;t gjdr fd;k tkrk gSA ftldh tkap fnukad 18-11-2011 dks iz[kaM f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] lqxkSyh ds }kjk dh xbZ ftlesa yxk;k x;k vkjksi lgh ik;k x;kA mi;qZDr of.kZr vkjksi ds laca/k esa vki viuk Li"V izfrosnu ,d lIrkg ds vUnj v|ksgLrk{kjh dks ns fd D;ksa ugha vkidks Nk= ds lkFk xq:&f'k"; dh ifo= ijEijk dk dqVkjk?kkr djus ,oa uktk;t gjdr djus ¼ftlds fy, vki nks"kh gS½ ds vkjksi esa c[kkZLr dj fn;k tk;A izfrosnu fu/kkZfjr vof/k rd izkIr ugha gksus ij ;g le>k tk,xk fd vkidks vius cpko esa dqN ugha dguk gS rFkk vkidh c[kkZLrxh dh dkjZokbZ ij ,drjQk fu.kZ; fy;k tk;axkA vuqyXud & i=kad 573 fnukad 18-11-2011 dh Nk;kizfr fo'oklHkktu g0@& ftyk dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh¼LFkkiuk½ iwohZ pEikj.k] eksfrgkjhA** 14. The petitioner, thereafter, had filed his exhaustive show-cause reply on 9.1.2012, wherein, while dealing with the allegations, had coming out with an explanation that the application filed by the 37 students were in fact obtained and procured on blank paper by one Mankeshwar Singh, an uncle of one of the complainant student Sanjana Kumari and, in defence, he had placed reliance on another joint application of the students dated 4.1.1982 according to which the allegation against the petitioner was described to be false. Not only that, the petitioner in his explanation had also alleged motive and bias both against the Headmaster of the school with whom he claimed to have some land dispute as also internal difference in the matter of functioning of the school as also the Headmaster favouring all the absenting teachers of the school, namely, Haider Ali. The petitioner had further alleged that even the Block Education Officer was playing in the hands of his enemies and, therefore, her one sided report should not be relied. The petitioner had further alleged that even the Block Education Officer was playing in the hands of his enemies and, therefore, her one sided report should not be relied. For this purpose, the petitioner had also taken a plea that the Block Education Officer had claimed to have received application of 37 girl students through the Headmaster at 3.30 PM on 17.11.2011 whereas the First Information Report lodged by Mankeshwar Singh, the time of receipt of such application had been given at 4 PM. For this purpose, the petitioner had also taken a plea that the Block Education Officer had claimed to have received application of 37 girl students through the Headmaster at 3.30 PM on 17.11.2011 whereas the First Information Report lodged by Mankeshwar Singh, the time of receipt of such application had been given at 4 PM. To that extent, it would be relevant to reproduce the whole of aforesaid show-cause reply of the petitioner dated 9.1.2012 which reads as follows:— ^^lsok esa] ftyk dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh ¼LFkkiuk½ dk;kZy; ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] iwohZ pEikj.k eksfrgkjh fo"k;& Li"Vhdj.k ds lEcU/k esaA egk'k;] ,rn }kjk eSa Jheku~ ds dkj.k i`PNk i=kad fu- 30 fnukad 06-01-2012 ds vuqikyu esa fuEu rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr viuk Li"Vhdj.k ,oa iw.kZ tkudkjh gsrq lefiZr djuk pkgwaxk& 1- Jheku~ ds tkudkjh gsrq eSa ;gka Li"V djuk pkgw¡xk fd fnukad 8-11-11 ls 14-11-11 rd fpfdRlh; vodk'k] fnukad 15-11-11 ls 19-11-11 rd eksfrgkjh esa bXuw izf'k{k.k] fnukad 20-11-11 dks jfookjh; vodk'k rFkk fnukad 21-11-11 ls fnukad 30-11-11 rd iqu% fpfdRlh; vodk'k esa FkkA ¼fpfdRlh; dk izek.k i= dh Nk;k izfr layXu] vuqyXud&1½ blls ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd eSa fnukad 08-11-11 ls fnukad 30-11-11 rd 23 fnuksa rd fujarj e0fo0 ckyd lqxkSyh ls ckgj jgk gw¡ ftldh iqf"V mifLFkfr iath ,oa iz[k.M f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh lqxkSyh ds i=kad 573 fnukad 18-11-11 ls Li"V gks tkrk gS fd fo|ky; ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds n'kk esa eq>s d`f=e vfHk;ksx ls lafyIr djuk fooksfpr ugha gSA 2- bl ifjis{; esa esjk vkosnu egksn; dks izsf"kr vuq0&2 dqi;k voyksdu djuk pkgsaxs tks fnukad 30-11-11 dks iz[k.M f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh lqxkSyh dks gLrxr djk fn;k x;k gSA 3- fd eq>ij dqN O;fDrxr jaft'k ds dkj.k eux<ar ,oa feF;k ij vk/kkfjr ykaNuk vkjksfir fd;s x, gSa tks vk/kkjghu ,oa lR;rk ls ijs gS] ftldk toyUr izek.k ;g gS fd jktdh; e0fo0 ckyd lqxkSyh dh ckfydkvksa us lkewfgr :i esa ;g lEiq"V fd;k gS fd latuk dqekjh ds pkpk Jh eads'oj flag ,oa vU; O;fDr;ksa us "kM;a= Lo:i lkns dkxt ij bu ckfydkvksa ls Ny ls /;s; ls viuk uhth eryc lk/kus ds fy, Nk=kvksa dk gLrk{kj izkIr dj bldk mi;ksx esjs fo:) fd;k gSA ¼iz'uxr vkosnu dh Nk;k izfr layXu vuq&3½ lewg esa bl fy[ks x;s vkosnu dks xyr ekuuk vlR; ugha gksxkA 4- eSa vius i{k esa nwljk n`"VkUr izLrqr djuk pkgwaxk fd jk0e0fo0 ckyd lqxkSyh ds uCcs Nk= ,oa Nk=kvkas }kjk vfèkdkfj;ksa dks fy[ks x, lkeqfgd vkosnu fnukad 04-01-2012 ¼Nk;kizfr layXu vuq&4½ fLFkfr dks iw.kZr% lqLi"V djrk gS fd izfrjksfir vkjksi iw.kZr% ,d "kM;a= ,oa feF;k ij vk/kkfjr gS] ftldk okLrfodrk ls dksbZ lEcU/k ugha gSA Jheku~ ds lkjxfHkZr tkudkjh ds fy, ;gka ;g bafxr djuk izklkafxd gS fd latuk dqekjh ds pkpk Jh eads'oj flag ,oa esjs llqjky okys ,d gh iapk;r] xzke iapk;r jkt 'kqdy edM+ Fkkuk lqxkSyh ds fuoklh gSA gks ldrk gS fd pquko vkfn ds ikjfLifjd >a>V ds dkj.k eq>ls cnyk lk/kus ds è;s; ls eq>ij >qBk vkjksi yxk, gSA 5- izHkkjh iz/kkuk/;kid Jh eqrqZtk ,oa eSa ,d gh uxj iapk;r lqxkSyh ds fuoklh gSA blh dkj.k dqN Hkwfe fookn ,oa fo|ky; ds vkarfjd ekeys dks ysdj eSA budk fojks/k djrk gw¡A ,slh lEHkkouk gS fd Jh eqrqZtk esjs fo:) xyr vkjksi yxkj cnyk lk/kus ds /;s; ls ,slk fd;s gSA bldh vxzrk ;g gS fd bl e/; fo}ky; ds ,d f'k{kd ¼Jh gSnj vyh½ vuqifLFkr jgus dk vH;Lr gS vkSj vuqifLFkfr ds i'pkr izHkkjh iz/kkuk/;kid Jh eqrqZtk ds d`ik ik= jgus ds dkj.k vuqifLFkr ds [kkyh txgksa esa mifLFkfr izfo"V dj vuqifLFkfr dks mifLFkfr esa cny nsrs gSA ¼vuqyXud&5 ekg ekpZ 2011 dh mifLFkfr iath ds i`"V&1 dh Nk;kizfr½ ftldk ewy iath esa Jh gSnj vyh dh mifLFkfr ntZ gS fdUrq rRN.k djk;s x;s Nk;k izfr esa fnukad 22-3-11 ls ysdj fnukad 24-3-11 rd mifLFkfr ds LFkku ij fjfDr gS tks Nk;k izfr esa Li"Vr% n`f"Vxkspj gks jgk gSA 6- iz[k.M f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh lqxkSyh ,oa esjs fojksf/k;ksa ds chp lkaB&xkaB gksus ds dkj.k bu yksxksa us viuh eu% fLFkfr eq>ls cnyk lk/kus ds /;s; ls cuk fy;k FkkA blfy, eq>ls fcuk fdlh Li"Vhdj.k ds ekax fd;s rR{k.k dkjokbZ djrs gq, fcuk eq>s lquokbZ dk ekSdk fn;s gq, ,d i{kh; dkjokbZ dj esjs lsok lekIr djus gsrq ojh; inkf/kdkjh dks vuq'kalk fd;k gS tks U;k; mfpr ugha gSA D;ksafd ckfydkvksa ls lkns dkxt ij gLrk{kj izkIr dj ckn esa esjs fo:) vkosnu cukdj bldk mi;ksx fd;k x;k gS] ftlij izHkkjh iz/kkuk/;kid Jh eqrqZtk ,oa iz[k.M f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh Jherh ekSgj vUtqe us gLrk{kj mlh fnu vFkkZr fnukad 17-11-11 dks le; 3-30 cts vijkg~u vafdr fd;k gSA tcfd lqxkSyh Fkkuk ds izkFkfedh esa ?kVuk dk le; 4-00 cts vijkg~u ntZ fd;k x;k gSA brus NksVs le; vUrjky esa lkjh izfdz;k nzqr xfr ls iqjk dj ysuk ,d vk'p;Z dh ckr gSA blds vfrfjDr eq>s lquokbZ dk volj ¼yksdl LVsUMh½ ugha iznku djuk bl eu% fLFkfr dks tkfgj djrk gS fd eq>s bu izfdz;kvksa ds iwjk djus ds iwoZ gh nks"kh eku fy;k x;k gS] tks U;k; laxr izrhr gksrh gSA Jh eads'oj flag us vius ntZ djk;s x, izkFkfedh esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd og lnsg ml le; fo|ky; esa mifLFkr FksA brus de le; esa og fookn dks 'kkUr fd;s rc tkdj ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- Fkkuk esa ntZ djk;s] tks Jh eqrqZtk ,oa buds chp lkaB&xkaB gksus dks n'kkZrk gSA ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd 4-00 cts vijkg~u esa fo|ky; lekfIr ds ckn ;g fdl izdkj Nk=ksa ,oa f'k{kdksa dks ysdj ogka igwapsA tcfd oxZ lekfIr ¼4-00 cts½ ds iwoZ gh lqJh latuk dqekjh fookn ds LFky ij igwap pqdh FkhA ;g iqjh ?kVuk d`f=e] cukoVh vkSj vius eryc lk/kus ds /;s; ls jpk x;k gSA 7- ;gka ;g izdz; fopkj.kh; gS fd ntZ djk;s x;s izFkfedh esa izR;{kr% esjk uke ugha gS cfYd rhu yM+dksa dk uke gS ijUrq eq>s fdlh izdkj ls izkFkfedh esa vizR;{kr% esjk uke fufo"V dj lafyIr djus dk iz;Ru fd;k x;k gSA ¼vuq0&7] izkFkfedh dh Nk;kizfr½ eSa ,d xjhc ifjokj dk fookfgr O;fDr gwwWA nks NksVs&NksVs cPps ,oa iRuh ds vfrfjDr ekrk&firk ds Hkkj dk ogu Hkh eq>s gh lgu djuk iM+rk gSA egksn; ls uez fuosnu djuk pkgwaxk fd ekeys dh iw.kZ tkapksijkUr gh dksbZ fu.kZ; ysuk pkgsaxsA bl iqfur dk;Z ds fy, eSa Jheku~ dk vkthou vkHkkjh jgw¡xkA vuqyXud & ;FkksDr fo'oklHkktu ¼eks0 tehy v[rj½ uxj f'k{kd jk0e0fo0 ckyd] lqxkSyh fnukad 09-01-2012 izfrfyfi& vuqyXud lfgr vxzlkfjr ¼d½ v/;{k uxj iapk;r] lqxkSyh] ¼[k½ iz[kaM f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] iz[kaM&lqxkSyh ¼x½ Jhefr lquSuk nsoh] lnL;k iSuy lfefr uxj iapk;r lqxkSyh dks lknj lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dkjZokbZ gsrq izsf"krA** 15. What is more significant to be noted here is that copy of the show-cause reply dated 9.1.2012 though demanded only by the District Education Officer, the petitioner himself had given such copy to the appointing authority, namely, the Panel Preparation Committee including its Chairman Block Education Officer as also the members of the Panel Committee. 16. The District Education Officer on his part by his letter dated 9.1.2012 having considered the exaplanation of the petitioner had directed the matter to be placed before the Panel Preparation Committee in its meting to be held on 16.1.2012 and the executive officer of the Nagar Panchayat and the elected members of the Shiksha Samiti were also requested to attend the meeting in which the explanation of the petitioner with regard to aforesaid show-cause notice for termination of his service was to be considered. It also appears from the record of first writ petition of the petitioner that in the meeting held on 16.1.2012 under the Chairmanship of the Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat, Sugauli, the seriousness of the charges against the petitioner was discussed and reviewed and a decision was taken that a clear opinion should be obtained from the Ad-hoc Committee of the school and, accordingly, the Headmaster of the school was directed that the meeting of the Ad-hoc Committee of the school should be convened and allegation against the petitioner should be reviewed and a proceeding of the meeting of the Ad-hoc Committee should be made available for its being placed for taking necessary disciplinary action against the petitioner in the next meeting of the Panel Preparation Committee. 17. It is thus these two actions, namely, convening of the meeting of the Panel Preparation Committee vide letter dated 9.1.2012 and the consequential decision taken by the Committee on 16.1.2012 as communicated in the letter dated 18.1.2012 which was made subject matter of the first writ application filed by the petitioner, namely, CWJC No. 2617 of 2012 wherein the petitioner had prayed for the following relief:-01 “1(A) For issuance of appropriate writ/order or direction queahsing the order issued under Letter no. 65 dated 9.1.2012 by the District Programme Officer/Establishment) East Champaran Motihari by which the Respondent no.6 and 7 has been requested to participate in the meeting which has been filxed by the Chariman Nagar Panchayat Sugauli on 16.1.2012 at 1 P.M. in his Chamber for consideration of termination of services of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-1 to this writ application. B. For issuance of appropriate writ/order or direction commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on his post of Nagar Shikshak in the Government Middle School Boys Sugauli in the District of East Champaran.” 18. In this writ application, the petitioner had also enclosed a joint representation of a number of students of different schools dated 19.1.2012 for proving his good conduct as a teacher but this court, however, had refused to interfere in the matter and had dismissed the writ application vide its order dated 8.2.2012 reading as follows:— “The petitioner has only challenged the notice of the District Programme Officer (Establishment), East Champaran, Motihari, as contained in Annexure-1, fixing a date of meeting of Panel Preparatin Committee where the matter of removal of the petitioner is an agenda. Admittedly, no decision has been taken against the petitioner so far. Clearly, this writ application is premature at this stage. The writ application is, therefore, dismissed.” 19. It appears that after the writ application of the petitioner was dismissed by an order dated 8.2.2012, the meeting of the Panel Preparation Committee being the appointing authority of the petitioner was held on 9.2.2012 and the Committee, in the light of the materials collected in course of its enquiry, had taken a decision to remove the petitioner from service, whereafter, such a decision of the Panel Preparation Committee was sought to be carried by the District Programme Officer in letter no. 472 dated 21.2.2012 and the resultant order of dismissal of the petitioner was issued on 5.3.2012 under the signature of the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Sugauli as contained in Memo No. 65 dated 5.3.2012. 20. 472 dated 21.2.2012 and the resultant order of dismissal of the petitioner was issued on 5.3.2012 under the signature of the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Sugauli as contained in Memo No. 65 dated 5.3.2012. 20. The second writ application CWJC No. 6781 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner assailing the aforesaid order of his termination of service dated 05.03.2012 wherein he had prayed for the following relief:— "(A) For issuance of appropriate writ/order or direction quashing the order issued under Memo No. 65 dated 5.3.2012 under the dignat ure of the Executive Officer Nagar Panchayat , Sugauli District East Champaran by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the poat of Nagar Shikshak Middle School (Boys) Sugaluli, District East Champaran as contained in Annexure-1 to this writ application. (B) For issuance of appropriate writ/order or direction commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on his post of Nagar Shikshak in Government Middle School (Boys) Sugauli, District East Champaran and also for payment of honorarium to him." 21. This Court however had again refused to grant any relief to the petitioner and infact the same was not entertained by this Court on the ground of there being a statutory alternative remedy against the order of termination of service of the petitioner and the writ application was accordingly disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law after complying the principle of natural justice as would be evident from reading of the order dated 6.4.2012 which reads as follows :— "It appears from impugned Annexure-1 that, in the light of the resolution of the Teachers Employment Panel Preparation Committee, petitioner has been dismissed from service. In the circumstances, in terms of the Rules, petitioner has an alternative remedy against the said termination order before the Appellate Authority constituted in terms of Rule 18 of the Rules. This writ application is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer his appeal before the Appellate Authority which shall consider the same and dispose it of in accordance with law, after complying with the Principles of Natural Justice, positively within the time limit fixed in the Rules for disposal of such appeals." 22. This writ application is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer his appeal before the Appellate Authority which shall consider the same and dispose it of in accordance with law, after complying with the Principles of Natural Justice, positively within the time limit fixed in the Rules for disposal of such appeals." 22. Thereafter that the petitioner had moved the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority (hereinafter to be referred to “Tribunal”) in Case No.857 of 2012 which has been dismissed by the Tribunal affirming the order of dismissal of the petitioner dated 6.3.2012. 23. As noted above, the main plank of the petitioner’s case is violation of principle of natural justice and, in this regard, the petitioner in paragraph no. 25 to 40 of the writ petition has primarily concentrated on two aspects, namely, (i) The petitioner, being a regular employee, he could not have been dismissed from service without conducting a full fledged departmental proceeding whereas in the case of the petitioner neither any conducting officer has been appointed nor any charges had been framed and the consequential order of dismissal had been passed at the behest of Block Education Officer, Sugauli and District Programme Officer (Establishment), Motihari and infact the Panel Preparation Committee, the appointing authority of the petitioner, had never asked any show-cause reply from the petitioner. (ii) The petitioner’s services were removed under the conspiracy hatched by the Block Education Officer and Headmaster of the school who themselves had been indulged in corrupt practices and as the same was being opposed by the petitioner, he has been made an escape goat. 24. The plea of personal malafide as raised in the writ application however must fail, inasmuch as, whatever has been stated against the Block Education Officer and/or the Headmaster of the school, they have neither been made party by name over here nor even in the Tribunal they were impleaded party in their personal capacity. Thus, in their absence, the plea of malafide must fail as it is well settled that raising plea of malafide is usefully a resort of loosing litigant and such plea of malafide is only made but never established. Reference in this connection may be made to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of C.W. Rowjee Vs. Thus, in their absence, the plea of malafide must fail as it is well settled that raising plea of malafide is usefully a resort of loosing litigant and such plea of malafide is only made but never established. Reference in this connection may be made to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of C.W. Rowjee Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1964 SC 962 wherein it was held as follows:— "It is, no doubt, true that allegations of malafides and of improper motives on the part of those in power are frequently made and their frequency has increased in recent time. It is also somewhat unfortunate that allegations of this nature which have no foundation in fact, are made in several of the cases which have come up before this and other courts and it is found that they have been made merely with a view to cause prejudice or in the hope that whether they have basis in fact or not some of it at least might stick. Consequently it has become the duty of the Court to scrutinize these allegations with care so as to avoid being in any manner influenced by them, in cases where they have no foundation in fact. In this task which is thus cast on the courts it would conduce to a more satisfactory disposal and consideration of them, if those against whom allegations are made came forward to place before the court either their denials or their version of the matter, so that the Court may be in a position to judge as to whether the onus that lies upon those who make allegations of mala fides on the part of authorities of the status of those with which this appeal is concerned, have discharged their burden of proving it. In the absence of such affidavits or of materials placed before the Court by these authorities, the Court is left to judge of the veracity of the allegations merely on tests or probability with nothing more substantial by way of answer." 25. In the absence of such affidavits or of materials placed before the Court by these authorities, the Court is left to judge of the veracity of the allegations merely on tests or probability with nothing more substantial by way of answer." 25. Here in this case also, this Court, having perused the submissions made in all the three writ application, would find that whatever is now being stated to the malafide was not sought to be raised in the first two writ applications and in fact it would transpire that events taking place after the order of dismissal dated 4.3.2012 is being highlighted to establish the plea of malafide. In that view of the matter, this Court will have no hesitation in rejecting the plea of malafide. 26. The second ground raised by the petitioner that it was the Panel Preparation Committee which, under the rule, was the appointing authority of the petitioner but the order of removal of the petitioner was passed at the behest of District Education Officer and/or Block Education Officer is also to be only noted for its being rejected. Let it be noted that the Block Education Officer is part of Panel Preparation Committee of the post of Nagar Shikshak. The petitioner himself while filing the reply of the show-cause notice issued by the District Education Officer on 6.1.2012 had given copy of this show-cause reply to the Chairman, Member Secretary and the Member of the Panel Preparation Committee and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the show-cause was issued by one authority and the order has been passed by another. 27. Here in this case, the petitioner, working as a teacher, was under the control of the Headmaster. The Headmaster had received the complaint of the girl students and, thereafter, he had also found that to be true and had forwarded the same to the Block Education Officer. The Block Education Officer who is directly having administrative control over the functioning of this school had herself enquired into the matter, asked questions from the girl students, teachers of the school and, thereafter, had submitted her report to the District Education Officer. The Block Education Officer who is directly having administrative control over the functioning of this school had herself enquired into the matter, asked questions from the girl students, teachers of the school and, thereafter, had submitted her report to the District Education Officer. Let it be noted that the matter had become sensational in the sense that a First Information Report also had been lodged against the petitioner for abusing the girl students as was also admitted by the petitioner in his first application dated 30.11.2011 directly addressed to the District Education Officer. Thus, if the District Education Officer on receipt of the report of the Block Education Officer dated 18.11.2012 and the representation of the petitioner dated 30.11.2012 had initially got the petitioner removed from the school where he was facing very serious allegation by making his deputation vide an order dated 7.12.2011 and, thereafter had placed the matter before the Panel preparation Committee to discuss the issue and take its decision in the meeting convened and held on 16.1.2012, no procedural error was committed in taking a decision against the petitioner. 28. Let it be noted that the Panel Preparation Committee also did not take any decision in a huff. In fact, it had firstly discussed the issue in the meeting on 16.1.2012 and, thereafter, it had sought the opinion of the Ad-hoc Committee of the school by letter dated 18.1.2012 and after the Ad-hoc Committee on the bassi of its enquiry from girl students who had filed complaint aginst the petitioner had reported the matter as with regard to correctness of the allegation against the petitioner that a decision had been taken in the next meeting of the Panel Preparation Committee held on 9.2.2012 whereafter the impugned order has been passed on 05.03.2012. This Court, therefore, does not find any procedural error also in passing the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner. 29. As with regard to much highlighted grievance of the petitioner that since he was working on the post of Nagar Shikshak, a regular departmental proceeding by way of framing of charge and appointing enquiry officer ought to have been held, this Court must make it clear that the petitioner was neither a government servant nor having protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner having been appointed by Bihar Prarambhik Shiksha Niyojan and Seva Sart Niwamawali, 2006 was governed by the provisoin of Rule 17 which reads as follows:— ^^17- vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ%& ¼d½ cPpksa dks ihVus rFkk izrkfM+r djus ds vk/kkj ij fo|ky; f'k{kk lfefr dh vuq'kalk ij vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ dh tk ldsxhA ¼[k½ fo|ky; ls vuqifLFkr jgus vknru le; ij fo|ky; ugha vkus rFkk dRrZO;ksa ds izfr mnklhurk dh fLFkfr esa fo|ky; ds iz/kkuk/;kid@iz/kku f'k{kd vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ 'kq: dj ldsaxsA fo|ky; f'k{kk lfefr }kjk f'k{kdksa dh fu;fer mifLFkfr lqfuf'pr djus ds fy, vko';d dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ ds laca/k esa vafre fu.kZ; dafMdk 9¼7½ dh lfefr }kjk fy;k tk;sxkA (underlining for emphasis) 30. The disciplinary action, as contemplated in the aforesaid Rule, was to be taken by the Panel Preparation Committee under Rule 9 and such Panel Preparation Committee consisted of the Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat, Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat and lady member of the Education Committee, a nominee teacher of the District Education Officer and an officer of Education Department. Thus, when the petitioner himself admits to have approached the Panel Preparation Committee through his show-cause reply dated 9.1.2012 and such decision of dismissal of the petitioner, having been taken by that very Committee, he cannot be heard to say that disciplinary authority under Rule 17 had not taken such a decision. 31. Thus, while this Court will have no difficulty in holding that neither there was a requirement of conducting a regular departmental proceeding alike of a government servant having protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India nor the petitioner was denied the protection of principles of natural justice. 32. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that principle of natural justice was not followed in the case of the petitioner has also to be understood in the context of very serious nature of charges being faced by him. It will always have to be kept in mind that the rule of natural justice are not immutable but flexible and they are not cast in a rigid mould and they cannot be put in a legal strait-jacket. 33. Way back the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Tulsiram Patel reported in AIR 1985 SC 1416 had held that the rules of natural justice are not based on statutory rules. 33. Way back the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Tulsiram Patel reported in AIR 1985 SC 1416 had held that the rules of natural justice are not based on statutory rules. Each of these rules yields to and changes with the exigencies of different situations. They do not apply in the same manner to situations which are not alike. These rules are not cast in a rigid mould nor can they be put in a legal strait-jacket. They are not immutable but flexible. These rules can be adapted and modified by statutes and statutory rules and also by the constitution of the Tribunal which has to decide a particular matter and the rules by which such Tribunal is governed. 34. The same view was again reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Olga Tellis & Ors. Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. reported in AIR 1986 SC 180 wherein it was held that there are situations which demand the exclusion of the rules of natural justice by reason of diverse factors like time, place, the apprehended danger and so on. 35. The Apex Court yet again in the case of Ravi S. Naik Vs. Union of India reported in 1994(2) SCC 641 had also clarified that as to whether requirement of natural justice has been complied with or not has to be considered in the context of the fact and circumstances of a every case. 36. In the case of present kind where a teacher is sought to be facing charges of serious immoral character and in fact also abusing the girl students, there could not have been a full-fledged enquiry of the girl in presence of the petitioner. In fact, the girl students have filed the complaint with regard to immoral behavior of the petitioner to the Headmaster of the school and the same was forwarded to the Block Education Officer who had visited the school on the next day and had made enquiry from the girl students as also from the teachers before submitting her report dated 18.11.2011. The copy of the report was given to the petitioner and he had filed an exhaustive show-cause reply as has been quoted above, whereafter, the whole issue was placed before the Panel Preparation Committee under the letter of the District Education Officer and the Panel Preparation Committee also had obtained the opinion of the Ad-hoc Committee of the school and on finding the allegation to be true had thereafter proceeded to take a decision of dismissal from service. This Court, therefore, will not find any such principle of natural justice were in any way not followed. 37. In a somewhat similar situation, the Apex Court in the case of Hira Nath Mishra & Ors. Vs. The Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi & Anr. reported in 1973 (1) SCC 805 had upheld such an action of the authorities of not allowing girl students to be examined by the students who had entered naked into the compound of girls hostel. In that case also, 36 girl students had filed a confidential complaint and the Principal of the College had appointed an enquiry committee and the Committee had recorded the statements of the girl students not in the presence of the male students and the Committee, thereafter, had informed about the charges against them and when they had denied the charges, the Committee had found the male students guilty and they were expelled from the college. When such an action was challenged by the male students on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice with an added emphasis that the statement of girl students were recorded behind their back and no opportunity was given to them to cross examine those girl students, the Apex Court had held as follows:— “12. --------- The Committee on a careful consideration of the material before them came to the conclusion that the three appellants and Upendra had taken part in the night raid on the girls Hostel. The report was confidentially sent to the Principal. The very reasons for which the girls were not examined in the presence of the appellants, prevailed on the authorities not to give a copy of the report to them. It would have been unwise to do so. Taking all the circumstances into account it is not possible to say that rules of natural justice had not been followed. In Board of Education Vs. It would have been unwise to do so. Taking all the circumstances into account it is not possible to say that rules of natural justice had not been followed. In Board of Education Vs. Rice [1911 AC 179] Lord Loreburn laid down that in disposing of a question, which was the subject of an appeal to it, the Board of Education was under a duty to act in good faith, and to listen fairly to both sides, inasmuch as that was a duty which lay on everyone who decided anything. He did not think that the Board was bound to treat such a question as though it were a trial. The Board need not examine witnesses. It could, he thought, obtain information in any way it thought best, always giving a fair opportunity to those who were parties in the controversy to correct or contradict any relevant statement prejudicial to their view. More recently in Russeli Vs. Duke of Norfolk [(1949)1 All ER 109] at page 118 Tucker, L.J. observed “There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind of inquiry and every kind of domestic tribunal. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter that is being dealt with, and so forth. Accordingly, I do not derive much assistance from the definitions of natural justice which have been from time to time used, but whatever standard is adopted, one essential is that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case”. More recently in Byrne Vs. Kinematograph Rentrs Society Ltd. [(1968)2 All ER 579] Harman, J., observed “What, then, are the requirements of natural justice in a case of this kind? First, I think that the person accused should know the nature of the accusation made; secondly that he should be given an opportunity to state his case; and thirdly, of course, that the tribunal should act in good faith. I do not think that there really is anything more”. 13. Rules of natural justice cannot remain the same applying to all conditions. I do not think that there really is anything more”. 13. Rules of natural justice cannot remain the same applying to all conditions. We know of statutes in India like the Goonda Acts which permit evidence being collected behind the back of the goonda and the goonda being merely asked to represent against the main charges arising out of the evidence collected Care is taken to see that the witnesses who gave statements would not be identified. In such cases there is no question of the witnesses being called and the goonda being given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The reason is obvious. No witness will come forward to give evidence in the presence of the goonda. However unsavoury the procedure may appear to a judicial mind, these are facts of life which are to be faced. The girls who were molested that night would not have come forward to give evidence in any regular enquiry and if a strict enquiry like the one conducted in a court of law were to be imposed in such maters, the girls would have had to go under the constant fear of molestation by the male students who were capable of such indecencies. Under the circumstances the course followed by the Principal was a wise one. The Committee whose integrity could not be impeached collected and shifted the evidence given by the girls. Thereafter the students definitely named by the girls were informed about the complaint against them and the charge. They were given an opportunity to state their case. We do not think that the facts and circumstances of this case require anything more to be done.” 38. Yet again in almost a similar situation, as in the present case, this very aspect of plea of violation of principles of natural justice was again gone into by the Apex Court in the case of Avinash Nagra Vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti reported in (1997) 2 SCC 534 wherein a temporary teacher in a coeducational institution found to be indulging in sexual advances towards girl students, was subjected to an enquiry and was found guilty. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti reported in (1997) 2 SCC 534 wherein a temporary teacher in a coeducational institution found to be indulging in sexual advances towards girl students, was subjected to an enquiry and was found guilty. When the teacher had challenged the decision on the ground of denial of opportunity to cross-examine girl students, the Apex Court had emphasized the role of the teacher by elevating him as "Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu, Guru Devo Maheswaraha" and held that the character and conduct of a teacher should be more like a Rishi and if a teacher fails to maintain those standards, he is not fit to be retained in service. It was in this context that the Apex Court had also held that it was very hazardous to expose young girls to the tardy process of cross-examination and the authorities were right in not allowing all those girl students and the enquiry was not vitiated on the ground of such non-examination. 39. Thus, to conclude on the aspect of natural justice, this Court must borrow the expression of the Apex court in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited reported in (2005) 7 SCC 764 wherein it was clarified that while interpreting legal provisions, a court of law cannot be unmindful of the hard realities of life and the approach of the Court in dealing with cases coming before it should be pragmatic rather than pedantic, realistic rather than doctrinaire, functional rather than formal and practical rather than “precedential”. 40. Judged on this parameter and the peculiar facts of this case, this Court does not find any error in the procedure undertaken by the authorities while passing the impugned order. 41. 40. Judged on this parameter and the peculiar facts of this case, this Court does not find any error in the procedure undertaken by the authorities while passing the impugned order. 41. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint of the girl students was procured at the behest of the Headmaster who was somehow biased against the petitioner has also been examined by the Tribunal in a very graphic manner and the Tribunal has arrived at the following findings:— ^^izLrqr okn esa fu/kkZj.k dk eq[; fcUnq ;g gS fd D;k vihydÙkkZ ds c[kkZLrxh dk vkns'k tks fnukad 05- 03- 2012 dks ikfjr fd;k x;k lgh gS ;k ughA bl lanHkZ esa loZizFke vihydÙkkZ dk fojks/k laca/kh rF; ;g dgk x;k fd LFkkuh; jktuhfrd ls izsfjr gksdj mDr fo|ky; ds iz/kkuk/;kid rFkk iz[kaM f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] lqxkSyh ds feyh Hkxr ls mDr fo|ky; ds Nk=kvksa ls /kks[kk/kM+h ds rgr lkns dkxt ij mudk gLrk{kj djkdj ml ij euekus <azx ls vkosnu fy[k x;k gS] ftlesa vihydRrkZ ds fo:n~/k xyr vkjksiksa dk c;ku fn;k x;k gSA ysfdu mDr fo|ky; ds 37 Nk=kvksa }kjk tks vkosnu iz[kaM f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh lqxkSyh dks izèkkukè;kid] jk0e0fo0 ckyd lqxkSyh dks fn;k x;k gS] ftldh Nk;kizfr vfHkys[k ds lkFk nkf[ky gS] rFkk izfroknhx.k ds rjQ ls fy[khr cgl esa ,usDpj , gS] ds voyksdu ls Li"V gksrk gS fd vkosnu dh fy[kkoV mDr fo|ky; ds Nk=kvksa ds gh fy[kkoV esa gS vkSj vkosnu ds lekIrh ds ckn ls gh Nk=kvksa us viuk gLrk{kj 'kq: dj fn;k gSA tks nwljs i`"V rd fd;k x;k gSA mDr vkosnu ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd Nk=kvksa us muds lkFk ?kfVr ?kVukvksa dk o.kZu fd;k gSA vkSj mDr vkosnu esa vU; dksbZ ckr ugha fy[kh x;h gSA blfy, esjs fopkj ls vihydRrkZ dk ;g dFku fd Nk=kvksa dks /kks[kk esa j[kdj vkosnu fdlh vU; O;fDr ds }kjk fy[kdj mudk gLrk{kj lkns dkxt ij djk fy;k x;k gS] ;g rF; xyr ,oa fujk/kkj fl} gksrk gSa mDr vkosnu 17-11-2011 dks Nk=kvksa }kjk mDr fo|ky; ds iz/kkuk/;kid dks fn;k x;k vkSj iz/kkuk/;kid us Nk=kvksa ds dFku dks lR; crkrs gq, vkosnu dks iz[kaM f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] lqxkSyh dks vxzlkfjr fd;k] ;g lHkh rF; ;g fl} djrs gSa fd mDr fo|ky; ds Nk=kvksa us vius lkFk ?kfVr vihydRrkZ ds vHknz vkSj v'yhy O;ogkj dk o.kZu fd;k gSaA vkSj blesa dksbZ xzkeh.k jktfufrd izfrr ugha gksrh gSA** (Underlining for emphasis) 42. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint of Sanjana Kumari of her being physically abused by the petitioner was not established beyond doubt has also to be noted for its being rejected. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint of Sanjana Kumari of her being physically abused by the petitioner was not established beyond doubt has also to be noted for its being rejected. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal again has gone into this aspect at a great length in the following words:— ^^7- nwljk eq[; fcUnw ;g mBk;k x;k gS fd vihydÙkkZ ds fo:n~/k c[kkZLrxh ds dkjZokbZ ds laca/k esa fcgkj f'k{kd fu;ekoyh 2006 rFkk la'kks/ku 2008 ds fu;e ds vuq:i dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k gSA mudk dFku gS fcgkj uxj fudk; izkjafHkd f'k[kd ¼fu;kstu ,oa lsok 'krZ½ fu;eokyh 2006 la'kksf/kr 2008 ds fu;e 17¼1½½ ds vuqlkj ¼cPpksa dks ihVus rFkk izrkfMr djus ds vkèkkj ij fo|ky; f'k{kk lfefr dh vuq'kalk ij vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ dh tk ldsxh½ blfy, vihydRrkZ ds vuqlkj Nk=kvksa ds vkosnu ij fo|ky; f'k{kk lfefr ds vuq'kalk ij vihydRrkZ ds fo:n~/k vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ gksuh pkfg, Fkh ysfdu ,slk ugha gqvk gSaA Nk=kvksa dk fnukad 17-11-2011 dk vkosnu izèkkukè;kid ds ek/;e ls iz[kaM f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] dks Hkstk x;k gSA vkSj ml vk/kkj ij iz[kaM f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh us vkjksih ds tkap djds tkap izfrosnu rFkk vihydRrkZ ds fo:n~/k vuq'kkllfud dkjZokbZ gsrw izfrosnu fnukad 18-11-2011 dks ftyk dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh ¼LFkkiuk½ dks Hkst fn;kA blh chp fnukad 15-09-2011 dks Nk=k latuk dqekjh dks vihydRrkZ us jkLrs ls vigj.k dj nwljs txg ys ykdj mlds lkFk nqjkpkj fd;k gSA bl laca/k esa izkFkfeeh ntZ dh x;h ftl vk/kkj ij lqxkSyh Fkkuk esa dkaM la0&106@2012 Hkk0 n0 la0 dh /kkjk 366¼,-½ 372] 376@511] 120ch- ds varxZr vihydRrkZ ds fo:} eqdnek ntZ fd;k x;k tks vHkh yafcr gSA Nk=kvksa us ftyk inkf/kdkjh iwohZ pEikj.k dks ,d vkosnu mijksDr ?kVukvksa rFkk vihydRrkZ }kjk v'yhy ,oa vHknz O;ogkj djus rFkk Nk=kvkas dks lM+d ij ?ksj dj muds lkFk vHknz O;ogkj djus dk vkosnu fn;k] ftlij ftyk inkf/kdkjh] us iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdjh] lqxkSyh dks tkap ds fy, Hkstk] vkSj iz[kaM fodkl inkfèkdkjh us tkap esa vihydRrkZ ds fo:} vkjksiksa dks lgh ikdj viuk izfrosnu fnukad 10-12-2011 dks ftyk inkf/kdkjh dks fn;kA lfefr] ds lnL; lfpo gS vkSj mlds vuqlkj ftyk dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh ¼LFkkiuk½ us uxj iapk;r iSuy lfefr ds cSBd ds fy, uxj iapk;r iSuy lfefr ds v/;{k dks fy[kk rFkk fnukad 16-01-2012 dks mDr iSuy lfefr dh cSBd dh x;h ftlij vihydRrkZ ds fo:} yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ij fopkj foe'kZ fd;k x;kA vkSj fnukad 16-01-2012 ds cSBd esa iSuy fuek.kZ lfefr us ;g fu.kZ; fy;k fd vihydRrkZ ds fo:} dksbZ vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ djus ds iwoZ fo|ky; lnL; f'k{kk lfefr dh vuq'kalk ,oa izfrosnu izkIr dh tk,] vkSj lkjs rF;ksa ds lkFk fo|ky; lnL; f'k{kk lfefr dks voxr djk;k x;k] fQj fnukad 24-01-2012 dks fo|ky; lnL; f'k{kk lfefr us vius cSBd esa vihydRrkZ ds fo:n~/k yxk;s x;s Nk=kvksa ds vkjksi vkosnu rFkk bl lanHkZ eas izkIr fofHkUu inkf/kdkjh dk tkap izfrosnu dk voyksdu fd;k rFkk fo|ky; dh Nk=kvksa ls fo|ky; f'k{kk lfefr ds lnL;ksa }kjk vihydRrkZ ij yxk;s vkjksiksa ds laca/k esa iwN&rkN fd;k x;kA vkSj vkjksiksa dks lgh ikdj fo|ky; f'k{kk lfefr us fnukad 24-01-2012 dks vihydRrkZ ds fo:} dM+h vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ gsrw vuq'kalk fd;kA blfy, ;|fi vihydRrkZ ds fo:} vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ dh 'kq:vkr fo|ky; f'k{kk lfefr ds vuq'kalk ij ugha dh x;h] ysfdu vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ fo|ky; f'k{kk lfefr ds vuq'kalk izkIr djus ds ckn gh fd;k x;kA vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd vihydÙkkZ ds fo:} cPpksa dks flQZ izrkfM+r djus dk vkjksi ugha gS cfYd izrkfM+r djus ls vyx rFkk mlls xaHkhj vkjksi gSA D;ksafd vihydRrkZ fo|ky; ds Nk=kvksa ds lkFk vHknz ,oa v'yhy O;ogkj djrs jgs gSa tks uSfrdrk ds fo:) gS rFkk Nk= vkSj f'k{kd ds ifo= laca/k ds fo:) gS ;gh ugha vihydRrkZ ds fo:) Nk=k latuk dqekjh dks jkLrs ls vigj.k dj mlds lkFk vuSfrd dk;Z djus dk Hkh vkjksi gS ftl laca/k ea fdzeuy eqdnek nk;j gS tks yafcr gS vkSj bl lHkh vkjksikaa ij iz[kaM f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh rFkk iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh lqxkSyh dk tkap izfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij vkjksi lgh ik;h x;hA blfy, esjs fopkj ls vxj vihydRrkZ ds fo:n~/k fo|ky; f'k{kk lfefr ds vuq'kalk ij vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh 'kq: ugha dh x;h] rks ;g mruk Elligality ugha gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij vihydRrkZ ds c[kkZLrxh dks jn~n fd;k tk ldsA D;ksafd vihydRrkZ ij yxk;s vkjksi ,sls gS ftudh tkap fo|ky; f'k{kk lfefr ds vfrfjDr vU; LFkkuh; inkf/kdkfj;ksa ls djkuk vko';d FkkA vkSj blh dkj.k tkap ds vk/kkj ij ftyk dk;Zdze inkfèkdkjh ¼LFkkiuk½ us tks uxj iapk;r ds iSuy lfefr ds lnL; lfpo gksrs gSa os uxj iapk;r iSuy lfefr ds cSBd dk vkogu fd;kA vr% esjs fopkj ls flQZ bl rF; ds vk/kkj ij vihydRrkZ ds c[kkZLrxh dks jn~n ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA** (Underlining for emphasis) 43. A question would arise as to what was supposed to be done in a case like this where the petitioner being a teacher was subjected to such a serious allegation of physically abusing the girl students. In the considered opinion of this Court, the discreet enquiry made by the Block Education Officer supported by the enquiry of the District Programme Officer (Establishment) and then by the members of the ad hoc committee who had examined those girls who were made victim was sufficient for arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner was involved in a very serious misconduct. 44. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Committee, while taking a decision for dismissal of the petitioner from service, did not take into consideration the explanation given by the petitioner on 30.11.2011 and 4.1.2012 containing statement of number of students that the petitioner had a very good morale character has also been gone into by the Tribunal which has found that those statements actually were doctored and manufactured in the name of the students by the petitioner himself. To that extent, the Tribunal’s findings reads as follows:— ^^6- nwljh ckr bl lanHkZ esa ;g gS fd vihydÙkkZ us vius cpko esa rFkk mijksDr dFku ds leFkZu esa ftyk inkfèkdkjh] rFkk ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] dks fyf[kr vkosnu fnukad 30-11-2011 rFkk 04-01-2012 dks vyx vyx fn;k gS ftldh Nk;kizfr vihydRRkkZ us vius fyf[kr C;ku ds lkFk nkf[ky fd;k gSA mijksDr nksuksa vkosnu vihydRrkZ ds rjQ ls ugh cfYd jk0e0fo0 ckyd lqxkSyh ds Nk=kvksa ,oa Nk=ksa ds rjQ ls fn;k x;k gSA fnukad 30-11-2011 ds vkosnu esa ;g fy[kk x;k gS fd 17-11-2011 dks Nk=k latuk dqekjh ds pkpk ea;ds'oj flag nks O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk Nk=vksa ds d{kk esa vk;s rFkk lkns dkxt ij Nk=kvksa ls ;g dgdj gLrk{kj djk;k fd bl dkxt dks Ldwy ds uke ij tehu jftLVzh djus ds fy, nsuk gS ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd ckn esa irk pyk fd mDr dkxt ij vihydRrkZ ds fo:} vkjksi yxkdj vkosnu fn;k x;k gS vkSj vihydRrkZ ds fo:} vHknz ,oa v'yhy O;ogkj ds vkjksi dks xyr crk;k x;k gSA fnukad 30-11-2011 ds vkosnu ds voyksdu ls Li"V gksrk gS fd vkosnu ds lHkh rF; Lo;a Nk=vksa }kjk ugha fy[kh x;h gS cfYd fdlh nwljs O;fDr }kjk fy[kk x;k gS vkSj mu ij Nk=kvksa dk gLrk{kj djk fy;k x;k gS] ftldh la[;k 27 gS] blesa dqN ,slh Hkh Nk=k,a gSa ftudk uke Nk=kvksa }kjk fnukad 17-11-2011 }kjk fn;s x;s vkosnu esa Hkh uke gSA nwljh ckr fnukad 30-11-2011 ds vkosnu ds rF; Ldwy ds uke ij tehu jftLVzh djkus ds fy, Nk=kvksa dk gLrk{kj dj;k x;k gSA ;g Lo;a xyr ,oa vlaxr fl} gksrk gSa D;ksafd Ldwy ds uke tehu jftLVzh Nk=kvksa ds gLrk{kj ls ugh agks ldrk gSaA cfYd fdlh tehu /kkjd O;fDr ds }kjk fcgkj ljdkj ds jkT;iky rFkk fcgkj ljdkj dks vkosnu nsus ij jftLVzh gksrh gS vkSj Ldwy dk tehu jkT;iky ds uke ls jftLVzh gksrk gSa A blh rjg fnukad 04-01-2012 dk vkosnu tks Nk= ,oa Nk=kvksa }kjk dgk tkrk gS ftlesa 90 Nk=ksa dh la[;k gS] ds voyksdu ls Hkh Li"V gS fd vkosnu dk rF; fdlh nwljs O;fDr }kjk fy[kk x;k gSA ftldh fy[kkoV vyx gS vkSj Nk= rFkk Nk=kvksa us flQZ viuk gLrk{j fd;k gSA mijksDr rF;ksa ls ;g fl} gksrk gS fd vihydRrkZ us gh Nk=kvksa ,oa Nk=ksa ls lkns vkosnu dk Lo:i fn;k gSA vr% bu rF;ksa ls mijksDr nksuksa vkosnuksa dks esjs fopkj ls lgh ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA vkSj bl vk/kkj ij vihydRrkZ ds vkjksiksa dks xyr ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA** (underlining for emphasis) 45. From reading of the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal, it would become clear that not only the petitioner was indulging into indecent behavior of the girl students but also trying to pollute the young minds of the students by forcing them to put their signature on blank paper and given shape of a representation on their behalf in the date of 30.11.2011 and 4.1.2012. 46. At this stage, what has also to be taken into account is the fact that the petitioner had happily relied on the aforesaid application of the students dated 4.1.2012. Let it be noted that as on 4.1.2012, neither the students nor the petitioner was aware of the fact that any action was going to be taken against the petitioner. Let it be noted that incident had taken place on 17.11.2011, the fact finding enquiry was held on 18.11.2011, the report was submitted to the District Programme Officer (Establishment) on 28.11.2011 and thereafter the matter had remained within the domain of District Programme Officer (Establishment) till 6.1.2012. No one knew before 6.1.2012 that any action was even going to be taken against the petitioner. In this background, if it is found that 90 students of the school had allegedly filed their petition before the Collector of East Champaran, District Education Officer, East Champaran, District Programme Officer (Establishment), In-charge Deputy Collector, Public Grievance Bureau, East Champaran, Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat, Sugauli and Block Education Extension Officer, Sugauli in favour of the petitioner and his character and conduct, that by itself will go to show that it was a manufactured document as has been found by the Tribunal in the findings recorded above. 47. In the ultimate analysis, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has not committed and error in affirming the order of dismissal of the services of the petitioner and has correctly relied on the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Nutan Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2013(1)PLJR 321 defining the role of the teachers and the duty cast upon the teachers. 48. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2013(1)PLJR 321 defining the role of the teachers and the duty cast upon the teachers. 48. Thus, the concluding findings of the Tribunal as with regard to conduct of the petitioner in the following words can also not be said to be irrelevant, inasmuch as, the Tribunal, while upholding the order of dismissal of the petitioner, had held as follows:— ^^mijksDr QSlyk ds vuqlkj f'k{kd dk Hkxoku ds rqY; le>k x;k gS] vkSj mudk dke cPpkasa ds Hkfo"; dks cukuk ekuk x;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa vxj dksbZ f'k{kd vius fo|ky; ds Nk=kvksa ls vHknz vkSj v'yhy O;ogkj djsa mudk vijgj.k djsa muds lkFk nwjkpkj djsa ;k mldh Hkkouk j[ksa rks esjs fopkj ls ,slk f'k{kd vius ewy dk;Z ls gV tkrk gSA vkSj xq# f'k"; ds ifo= fj'rk dks lekIr dj nsrk gS ,sls f'k{kd dks fo|ky; esa gksus ls mDr fo|ky; ds Nk=@Nk=kvksa dk Hkfo"; cuus dk dke ugha] cfYd Hkfo"; [kjkc gksus dk dke gksxkA vkSj ,sls f'k{kd dks fo|ky; esa jgus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA rFkk LFkku ugha gSA bl lanHkZ esa vihydRrkZ ds fo:} lsok c[kkZLrxh dk vkns'k iw.kZr% U;k;ksfpr gSA** (underlining for emphasis) 49. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal in its fourteen pages judgment has gone into each and every aspect whether procedural or on merit and this Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, having found no procedural illegality in the dismissal of the service of the petitioner, is not at all inclined to interfere with the same which may lead to reinstatement of a characterless and immoral person like the petitioner back on the post of teacher. 50. That being so, this application, being devoid of any merit, must be and is hereby dismissed.