JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri B.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondents and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has arisen out of the judgment and order dated 8th October, 2004 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, dismissing Original Application No. 1194 of 2002, affirming termination order dated 27th July, 2001 passed by Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, being Disciplinary Authority, (hereinafter referred to as ‘DA’), and appellate order dated 23rd August, 2002 passed by Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Appellate Authority) rejecting petitioner’s appeal. 3. Petitioner Dr. Indra Datta Pandey was initially appointed as Post Graduate Teacher (Hindi) in Kendriya Vidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as ‘KV’) on 24th June, 1966 and posted at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Fatehgarh. He got due promotions and in the year 1984 became Principal. While posted at KV, Mau, certain complaints were received regarding immoral behaviour with girls students, as a result whereof, petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter terminated by order dated 17th February, 1993 observing that disciplinary proceeding is not expedient, looking to the nature of charges leveled against petitioner and the fact that the same involve girls students. 4. This order was challenged by petitioner in Civil Rule No. 296 of 1993 in Gauhati High Court. vide judgment and order dated 13th August, 1996, petition was allowed. Operative part of judgment reads as under : “............In view of my reasons given above I am constrained to hold that notwithstanding anything contained the provisions of Art 81 (b) the pervasive facet of natural justice enlivens legislation, administration and adjudication to lessen the rigour of a piece of law. Application of the principle of natural justice and any forms and shapes of natural justice save the rule of law where valid law excludes it and applies when people are affected by acts of authority. On reading of the Article 81 (b) it cannot be said that there is no scope for giving an opportunity to the delinquent employee, nor there is any such blanket restriction put on the discretion of the authority that he cannot give a predecisional hearing or give any opportunity to the aggrieved person in any manner he thinks proper. The Article has been included to keep the sanctity, disciplinary and privacy of the educational institution. The Article has been included to keep the sanctity, disciplinary and privacy of the educational institution. In my view, it cannot be said that the inclusion of this Article is inconsistent with the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules or is ultra vires to the rights enshrines by the Constitution. Provision of this Article provides for summary proceeding for certain purpose and rigidity and rigour of the provisions are amenable to principle of natural justice and if complaint is made before the appropriate authority or to the Court, the same has to be decided whether observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of the case. In view of that matter I hold that the Article 81 (b) need not be read down nor be struck off from the Education Code and is not ultra vires of the CCS (CCA) Rules and provisions of Education Code. However, as discussed above, the respondent Commissioner did not give an opportunity for predecisional hearing to the petitioner and therefore the same procedure violates the principle of natural justice. 23. The respondent authority is directed to issue notice to the writ petitioner and give him an opportunity to represent his case on the materials only available with the respondent authority and the authority concerned shall give a speaking order after hearing him. 24. In the result the writ petition is allowed.” (emphasis added) 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, an opportunity was afforded to petitioner vide notice dated 18th July, 2001 on 24th July, 2001 requiring him to appear before Commissioner, KV. Thereafter termination order dated 27th July, 2001 was passed in purported exercise of power under Article 81 (B) of Education Code for KV. 6. Petitioner preferred appeal against the aforesaid order of termination which was dismissed vide order dated 23th August, 2002. These orders were challenged before Tribunal in O.A. No. 1194 of 2002, but it has upheld order of termination and dismissed aforesaid O.A. 7. The grievance of petitioner is that charges levelled against him are false and fabricated. He was made a scapegoat. Since son of Chairman of KV, Cooch Bihar was denied admission for which he held petitioner responsible personally and played an important role in manufacturing everything. The grievance of petitioner is that charges levelled against him are false and fabricated. He was made a scapegoat. Since son of Chairman of KV, Cooch Bihar was denied admission for which he held petitioner responsible personally and played an important role in manufacturing everything. The relevant material relied upon against petitioner was never disclosed to him and he was not given effective opportunity before Commissioner as directed by Gauhati High Court vide judgment and order dated 13th August, 1996. Petitioner has worked with great devotion and completed his superannuation but impugned order has been passed to deny all benefits to him. There was no justification or legality in the proceeding initiated by respondents after eight years from date of judgment of Gauhati High Court and it shows clear bias, prejudice and otherwise malice on the part of respondents. Principles of natural justice require that person concerned must be given full information about charges levelled against him, material to be used against him and impartial inquiry need be conducted which has not been done. Tribunal has failed to consider that suspicion cannot substitute a proof and impugned order has been passed as a result of complete non-application of mind. 8. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents- 3 to 5 i.e. officials of KV stating that KV is an autonomous body. It is a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is fully financed by Government of India. Board of Governors is the supreme body to manage affairs of KV Sangathan which is running about more than 800 schools across the country and abroad also. For proper management, Regional Offices have been established headed by Assistant Commissioner of Region. Education Code has been framed with the approval of Board of Governors which contains terms and conditions of employees of KV. Petitioner while working as a Principal in KV indulged in the act of exhibition of immoral sexual behaviour towards a girl student, namely, Km. Swagata Chatterjee, the then student of class IX of KV Cooch Bihar. On 7th November, 1992, Assistant Commissioner, KV Sangathan, Regional Office, Gauhati got a summary inquiry conducted by deputing Dr. P.C. Bhatt, the then Education Officer, Regional Office, Gauhati. As per inquiry report submitted by Dr. P.C. Bhatt and after going through written statement of girl students and their parents and witnesses, allegations against petitioner were found established. On 7th November, 1992, Assistant Commissioner, KV Sangathan, Regional Office, Gauhati got a summary inquiry conducted by deputing Dr. P.C. Bhatt, the then Education Officer, Regional Office, Gauhati. As per inquiry report submitted by Dr. P.C. Bhatt and after going through written statement of girl students and their parents and witnesses, allegations against petitioner were found established. Based on the said report and evidence collected in summary inquiry, the then Commissioner, KV Sangathan, terminated petitioner vide order dated 17th February, 1993 exercising power under Article 81(B) of Education Code by dispensing with prescribed procedure for holding regular inquiry in accordance with Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCA Rules, 1965’) as the same may cause serious embarrassment to girls students and their parents. Petitioner filed a writ petition No. 496 of 1993 before Gauhati High Court. vide order dated 5th March, 1993, termination order, at first stage, was stayed and, thereafter vide judgment and order dated 13th August, 1996, the said order was set aside. 9. Petitioner had also challenged vires of Article 81(B) of Education Code but the same was upheld by Gauhati High Court. Termination order, however, was set aside by directing Commissioner to give predecisional hearing on the basis of material available with respondents authority and then pass a speaking order. In compliance thereto, a notice was issued to petitioner to appear before competent authority on 24th July, 2001. He was also provided material available with respondents but just to prolong matter beyond his retirement, petitioner expressed his inability to appear on 24th July, 2001. Subsequently, petitioner appeared before competent authority on 26th July, 2001 and submitted his representation against inquiry report. He was given opportunity of personal hearing. After going through documents on record as well as petitioner’s representation and submissions made in personal hearing, Commissioner, KV Sangathan concluded that petitioner was prima facie guilty of offence involving moral turpitude. Consequently, by invoking provisions of Article 81(B) of Education Code, petitioner was terminated vide order dated 27th July, 2001. 10. Petitioner then approached Tribunal in O.A. No. 1286 of 2001 but it was dismissed on 17th May, 2002 on account of alternative remedy of appeal. Consequently, by invoking provisions of Article 81(B) of Education Code, petitioner was terminated vide order dated 27th July, 2001. 10. Petitioner then approached Tribunal in O.A. No. 1286 of 2001 but it was dismissed on 17th May, 2002 on account of alternative remedy of appeal. Petitioner then preferred appeal vide memo of appeal dated 6th June, 2002 which was considered by Vice Chairperson, KV Sangathan, who also afforded personal hearing to petitioner on 31st July, 2002 and 1st August, 2002 and then dismissed appeal vide order dated 23th August, 2002. 11. Allegations that false charge was levelled against petitioner has been denied stating that complaint was made by girl students of class IX who cannot be expected to bring a false charge against petitioner of such a nature. Allegations against Chairman, KV Cooch, Bihar are also denied being false and baseless. Petitioner, in fact, has admitted in his reply that on incident occurred on 7th November, 1992 when he has said in reply as under : “I pet on her back and told to go to her class. She threatened me and went out for her class. But in her way she again stopped by some elder students as I heard some whispering of asking her what happened and they made a story.” 12. During tenure as Principal, KV, Tengavally, petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 8th May, 2001 alleging irregular appointments made by him. Termination order has been passed strictly in accordance with requirement of Article 81 (B) of Education Code and also complying directions of Gauhati High Court of giving opportunity to petitioner and passing a reasoned order. 13. Petitioner has also filed rejoinder-affidavit repeating the facts what he has stated in writ petition and documents appended thereto, hence, we do not repeat those facts but may refer averments of rejoinder-affidavit wherever necessary while discussing matter on merits. 14. The only question up for consideration is “whether here was a case which justified termination of petitioner by dispensing with requirement of regular departmental inquiry”, and “whether petitioner was given minimal opportunity in terms of Gauhati High Court’s judgment and order dated 13th August, 1996". 15. KV Regional Office, Gauhati received a telegram alleging as under : “Again another Girl of Class IX molested by Principal K.V. Cooch Bihar in his chamber, Angry Mob parents Gheraod, confined in residence out of Fgar.” 16. 15. KV Regional Office, Gauhati received a telegram alleging as under : “Again another Girl of Class IX molested by Principal K.V. Cooch Bihar in his chamber, Angry Mob parents Gheraod, confined in residence out of Fgar.” 16. vide letter dated 17th November, 1992, Regional Office required petitioner to give his comments. Petitioner submitted reply dated 17th November, 1992. With respect to incident involving girl student, he said : “One girl student Swagata class IX came to me. I asked her I have not called you alone or by name. You should not leave your classes, the practice for the action song in which you are background singer is also not being done now. So to your class and tell others who are only watching the rehearsal to go to their respective classes. She was standing near to me. I pet on her back and told to go to her class. She threatened me and went out for her class. But in her way she again stopped by some elder students as I heard some whispering of asking her what happened and they made a story. The girl student has a bad name.” 17. He sought to explain that some senior students punished by him in order to take revenge have manipulated everything. He also said that he is unable to run school, therefore, may be transferred to another place. 18. The matter was got inquired into. A report was submitted by Education Officer on 19th November, 1992 which is on record as annexure-8 to writ petition. With regard to incident which took place on 7th November, 1992, report said as under : “On inquiry, it is revealed that on 7.11.92 around 12:30 P.M. Dr. I.D. Pandey, Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya Cooch Bihar called Kum. Swagata Chatterjee, a student of class IX A to his chamber through Mausami Gurung. At that time the children were busy in music and dance reharshala in the room adjacent to the Principal’s office. As per Kum. Swagata Chatterjee (statement enclosed at Sl. 1) when she entered Principal’s room, he held her hand kissed it first, then bringing her closer kissed her cheek and started touching private parts of her body. She immediately freeded her from him and went outside and narrated the incident to met teacher Mrs. Krishna Niyogi and her other friends. As per Mrs. K. Niyogi met (statement enclosed at Sl. She immediately freeded her from him and went outside and narrated the incident to met teacher Mrs. Krishna Niyogi and her other friends. As per Mrs. K. Niyogi met (statement enclosed at Sl. 2) when she came out of her class in 5th period, she found Kum. Swatata Chatterjee crying. In the meantime Principal called for another girl Kum. Mudhurima Das to his chamber and on getting the same she also started crying.” (emphasis added) 19. Girl student repeated statement narrating the same facts before Dr. P.C. Bhatt, Education Officer. Another student of class IX-A also endorsed that petitioner Dr. I.D. Pandey, few days back held her hand in his chamber. On 9th November, 1992 after news broke out, angry students surrounded residence of petitioner during lunch hour, raised slogans against him and thrown stones braking many window panes. Since school campus was in the campus of Headquarters, Chairman, VMC Lt. Col. Jagdish Madan reached on the spot and persuaded students and pacified them. After going back to school, students staged a protest in front of Principal’s office. Chairman, VMC, Lt. Col. Jagdish Madan went to Principal’s office alongwith petitioner and in their presence, girl student Km. Swagata Chatterjee repeated story of misbehaviour in presence of petitioner. Petitioner then went out of office and tendered apology to agitating students. On 17th November, 1992, a group of agitating parents alongwith father of Kum. Swagata Chatterjee met Education Officer and handed over a complaint giving details of misbehaviour of petitioner with girl and requested to take suitable action against him. In a meeting of parents association dated 17th November, 1992, a joint memorandum of teachers and parents was handed over to Education Officer. In the meeting, parents and teachers narrated a number of incidents about unbecoming behaviour of petitioner with girl students as well as lady teachers. Even lady teachers submitted memorandum requesting that petitioner should immediately be removed from KV, Cooch Bihar fearing, if he was allowed to continue, girls students may not attend classes or other students may continue with their agitation and lady teachers, who have opened their mouth against Principal, may be victimized by him. At least names of four girl students, besides Km. Swagata Chatterjee, were mentioned with whom petitioner has misbehaved in similar fashion. The statements of girl students was made part of inquiry report. Even Lt. Col. At least names of four girl students, besides Km. Swagata Chatterjee, were mentioned with whom petitioner has misbehaved in similar fashion. The statements of girl students was made part of inquiry report. Even Lt. Col. Jagdish Madan stated that he had also received complaints of misbehaviour by petitioner towards girl students and lady teachers. It is in these facts and circumstances that termination order in question was passed. Petitioner’s representation against inquiry report is on record as annexure-9 to writ petition. He stated that allegations are concocted, false and incorrect and he has been made a victim. 20. It is in this backdrop, we have to examine the question whether petitioner has been terminated validly or not. 21. Article 80 Education Code, applicable to KV, contemplates that all the employees of KV shall be subject to disciplinary control of KV and for disciplinary matter, CCS Rules, 1965 as amended from time to time, will apply mutatis mutandis to all members of staff of KV except when otherwise decided. Exceptions to above procedure are contained in Article 81 (A) and (B). We propose to reproduce both Articles as under : “Article 81 (A) Termination of Services in Certain Cases-Special Procedure An exception to the rules mentioned in the preceding Article shall, however, be made in the following types of cases; (i) In the case of an employee who is known to be of doubtful integrity or conduct, but where it is difficult to bring forth sufficient documentary or other evidence to establish the charges, and whose retention in the Vidyalaya, etc. will be prejudicial to the interests of the institution. (ii) In the case of an employee suspected of grave misconduct, where the initiation of regular proceedings against him in accordance with the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, is likely to result in embarrassment to class of employees and/or is likely to endanger the reputation of the institution. In cases of the above type, the Appointing Authority may record the reasons for termination of the services of the employee in its own record and, thereafter, terminate the services of the employee under the terms of appointment without assigning any reason. Where the Appointing Authority is the Principal, action to terminate the services of an employee under the terms of appointment shall be taken only after obtaining the prior approval of the Assistant Commissioner. Where the Appointing Authority is the Principal, action to terminate the services of an employee under the terms of appointment shall be taken only after obtaining the prior approval of the Assistant Commissioner. (B) Termination of services of an employee found guilty of immoral behaviour towards students: Where the Commissioner is satisfied after such a summary enquiry as he deems proper and practicable in the circumstances of the case that any member of the Kendriya Vidyalaya is prima facie guilty of moral turpitude involving sexual offence or exhibition of immoral sexual behaviour towards any student, he can terminate the services of that employee by giving him one month’s or three month’s pay and allowances accordingly as the guilty employee is temporary or permanent in the service of the Sangathan. In such cases, procedure prescribed for holding enquiry for imposing major penalty in accordance with CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as applicable to the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, shall be dispensed with, provided that the Commissioner is of the opinion that it is not expedient to hold regular enquiry on account of embarrassment to student or his guardians or such other practical difficulties. The Commissioner shall record in writing the reasons under which it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry and he shall keep the Chairman of the Sangathan informed of the circumstances leading to such termination of services. Note: Wherever and as far as possible, a summary inquiry in the complaint of immoral behaviour by a teacher towards the students of Kendriya Vidyalayas may be got investigated by the Complaints Redressal Committees constituted in the Regional offices” (emphasis added) 22. Article 81 (B) provides an exception of requirement a regular inquiry where a member of KV is prima facie guilty of moral turpitude involving sexual offence or exhibition of immoral sexual behaviour towards any student. Note to Article 81 (B) provides that whenever and as far as possible, a summary inquiry in the complaint of immortal behaviour by a teacher towards students of KV may be got conducted by Complaints Redressal Committee constituted in Regional offices. 23. It is in view of this requirement that summary inquiry got conducted through Dr. P.C. Bhatt, Education Officer, who recorded statements of several girl students. Lt. Col. Jagdish Madan also received complaints from lady teachers of KV where petitioner was posted at relevant time. Km. 23. It is in view of this requirement that summary inquiry got conducted through Dr. P.C. Bhatt, Education Officer, who recorded statements of several girl students. Lt. Col. Jagdish Madan also received complaints from lady teachers of KV where petitioner was posted at relevant time. Km. Swagata Chatterjee, girl student with whom incident took place on 7th November, 1992 reiterated her complaint before Inquiry Officer. Petitioner’s denial to all these incidents is quite understandable but there is nothing to show as to why those girl students or lady teachers would be giving any wrong information or making false accusation against petitioner. The nature of allegations which involved petitioner as a Principal of school and minor girl students of class IX apparently are very serious and within the ambit of Article 81 (B). Summary inquiry report and material collected by competent authority was made available to petitioner, he submitted his reply. Personal hearing was given and thereafter order of termination has been passed, therefore, minimal permissible requirement of principles of natural justice have been complied with. Authorities have found consistently from material available with them that here is a case which attracts Article 81(B) and petitioner being prima facie guilty of allegations, is not a fit person to allow to continue in service as Principal of KV. 24. When a complaint is made against a teacher to have misbehaved with girl students or co-lady teacher, in an educational institution, nature of inquiry which is needed to be conducted in such matters does not attract the same length and width as is contemplated in respect of other regular inquiries supposed to be conducted by an employer against an employee. Society gives a very high pedestal and status to a teacher and consider him even above God. We have in Hindu Scripture, place of teacher as that of God like Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh. It is well known couplet that ‘ where God and Teacher are standing together, one should touch feet of teacher who has given light to know God.’ 25. Special status of teacher has been reminded by Court in Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and others, (1997) 2 SCC 534 . Therein, Avinash Nagra was a Post-graduate teacher employed in Navodaya Vidyalaya in 1994. The Institution was a co-educational Institution. Special status of teacher has been reminded by Court in Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and others, (1997) 2 SCC 534 . Therein, Avinash Nagra was a Post-graduate teacher employed in Navodaya Vidyalaya in 1994. The Institution was a co-educational Institution. Sri Nagra was terminated in terms of letter of appointment on the ground of his improper conduct with a girl student. Writ petition against termination order was rejected, whereafter matter came to Supreme Court. Counsel for Sri Nagra argued that an inquiry ought to have been conducted against alleged misconduct. Court directed management of Navodaya Vidyalaya to give a show-cause notice to petitioner. In furtherance thereof, show-cause notice was issued to Sri Nagra alongwith statement of girl, her room-mates etc. After receipt of explanation submitted by Sri Nagra, management drawn a report and submitted to Court with finding of guilt of Sri Nagra, of moral turpitude involving exhibition of immoral sexual behaviour, towards a girl student in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kinnaur. It is in this backdrop, matter was decided by Supreme Court vide judgment dated 30th September, 1996. 26. Similar arguments as raised before us were also raised therein that Sri Nagra ought to have been allowed to participate in a detailed inquiry, giving an opportunity to cross-examine complainant i.e. girl student and others; and that procedure followed was in violation of settled principles of natural justice. Rejecting this contention, Court held that educational Institution was part of chain of nation-wide co-educational specialized Institutions and almost 1/3rd students were girls. With a view to ensure safety and security to girls students, to protect their modesty and prevent their unnecessary exposer at an enquiry, in relation to conduct of a teacher, resulting in sexual harassment of girl student etc., involving misconduct or moral turpitude, a resolution prescribing special summary procedure was proposed and published by notification dated 23 December, 1993, after due approval of Executive of Educational Institution Committee. The notification postulates to dispense with regular enquiry under Rules. The provisions, therefore, contemplated a situation where instead of adopting regular procedure under rules, to terminate services of an employee, a summary procedure may be followed and adopted by dispensing with a regular enquiry. 27. It is in this backdrop, Court in Avinash Nagra (supra) first considered, whether in respect of a teacher such summary inquiry would be justified or not. 27. It is in this backdrop, Court in Avinash Nagra (supra) first considered, whether in respect of a teacher such summary inquiry would be justified or not. Court considered special status and position, a teacher enjoys in this country. Quoting Father of the Nation, Court said that a teacher cannot be without character. If he lacks it, he will be like salt without its savour. A teacher must touch the hearts of his students. Boys imbibe more from the teacher’s own life than they do from books. If teachers impart all the knowledge in the world to their students but do not inculcate truth and purity amongst them, they will have betrayed them. Quoting Shri Aurobindo, Court said that it is the teacher’s province to hold aloft the torch, to insist at all times and at all places that this nation of ours was founded on idealism and that whatever may be the prevailing tendencies of the times, our children shall learn to live among the sun-lit peaks. Court also referred Dr. S. Radhakrishanan saying that we in our country look upon teacher as gurus or, as acharyas. An Acharya is one whose achar or conduct is exemplary. He must be an example of Sadachar or good conduct. He must inspire the pupils who are entrusted to his care with love of virtue and goodness. The ideal of a true teacher is andhakaraniridhata gurur itya bhidhiyate. Andhakar is not merely intellectual ignorance, but is also spiritual blindness. He, who is able to remove that kind of spiritual blindness, is called a ‘guru’. Swami Vivekananda was also quoted saying that student should live from his very boyhood with one whose character is a blazing fire and should have before him a living example of the highest teaching. In our country, the imparting of knowledge has always been through men of renunciation. The charge of imparting knowledge should again fall upon the shoulder of Tyagis. 28. In para 12 of Judgment, Court in Avinash Nagra (supra) said as under: “...........Indian society has elevated the teacher as `Guru Brahma, Gurur Vishnu Guru Devo Maheswaraha’. As Brahma, the teacher creates knowledge, learning, wisdom and also creates out of his students, men and women, equipped with ability and knowledge, discipline and intellectualism to enable them to face the challenges of their lives. As Vishnu, the teachers is preserver of learning. As Maheswara, he destroys ignorance. As Brahma, the teacher creates knowledge, learning, wisdom and also creates out of his students, men and women, equipped with ability and knowledge, discipline and intellectualism to enable them to face the challenges of their lives. As Vishnu, the teachers is preserver of learning. As Maheswara, he destroys ignorance. Obviously, therefore, the teacher was placed on the pedestal below the parents. The State has taken care of service conditions of the teacher and he owed dual fundamental duties to himself and to the society. As a member of the noble teaching profession and a citizen of India he should always be willing, self-disciplined, dedicated with integrity to remain ever a learner of knowledge, intelligently to articulate and communicate and imbibe in his students, as social duty, to impart education, to bring them up with discipline, inculcate to abjure violence and to develop scientific temper with a spirit of enquiry and reform constantly to rise to higher levels in any walk of life nurturing Constitutional ideals enshrined in Article 51A so as to make the students responsible citizens of the country. Thus the teacher either individually or collectively as a community of teachers, should regenerate this dedication with a bent of spiritualism in broader perspective of the Constitutionalism with secular ideologies enshrined in the Constitution as an arm of the State to establish egalitarian social order under the rule of law. Therefore, when the society has given such a pedestal, the conduct, character, ability and disposition of a teacher should be to transform the student into a disciplined citizen, inquisitive to learn, intellectual to pursue in any walk of life with dedication, discipline and devotion with an inquiring mind but not with blind customary beliefs.............” (emphasis added) 29. Having said so, Court said that in a country where percentage of education among girls, even after independence, is fatham deep due to indifference on the part of all in rural India except some educated people, if a teacher of Educational Institution is indulged in such kind of activities and, thereafter, girl students are to be embarrassed by allowing participation in a detailed inquiry wherein they are also to be allowed to cross-examine by teacher concerned, it will result in a serious negative impact on the cost of education and particular to girl students. In a country like ours greater responsibility is thrust on management of schools and colleges to protect young children and in particular, growing up girls, to bring them up in a disciplined and dedicated pursuit of excellence. The teacher who has been kept in-charge, bears more added higher responsibility and should be more exemplary. His/her character and conduct should be more like Rishi and as loco parentis and such is the duty, responsibility in-charge expected of a teacher. When a teacher by his conduct has betrayed the trust and forfeited the faith, he cannot claim a full-fledged enquiry and it is sufficient, if basic compliance of natural justice is observed by giving a show-cause notice informing allegations levelled against him and substantial disclosure of material available against him and thereafter a decision is taken after considering his reply. 30. Court in Avinash Nagra (supra) also said as under: “...........Enquiry is not a pannacea but a nail on the coffin. It is self-inspection and correction that is supreme. It is seen that the rules wisely devised have given the power to the Director, a highest authority in the management of the institution to take decision, based on the fact situation, whether a summary enquiry was necessary or he can dispense with the services of the appellant by giving pay in lieu of notice. Two safeguards have been provided, namely, he should record reasons for his decision not to conduct an enquiry under the rules and also post with facts the information with Minister, Human Resources Department, Government of India in that behalf.......... The conduct of the appellant is unbecoming of a teacher much less a loco parentis and, therefore, dispensing with regular enquiry under the rules and denial of cross-examination are legal and not vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice.” 31. Similarly in another matter in Hira Nath Mishra and others v. The Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and another, (1973) 1 SCC 805 , some male students entered into a girls’ Hostel and allegations of indecent behaviour were levelled against them. An Enquiry Committee was constituted consisting of some independent persons who conducted a summary enquiry and after taking statements of girl students, without confronting them with male students, action was taken against erring students. An Enquiry Committee was constituted consisting of some independent persons who conducted a summary enquiry and after taking statements of girl students, without confronting them with male students, action was taken against erring students. The action taken against male students was challenged on the ground that enquiry was conducted behind their back and it is not consistent with the principles of natural justice. Repelling this argument, Court said that in this background it cannot be said that principles of natural justice would require that statements of girl students should have been recorded in presence of male students concerned and an opportunity of cross-examination by male students should have been allowed. Court said that principles of natural justice cannot remain the same, applying to all conditions. Referring to Statute like Goonda Act, Court noted that therein evidence can be collected behind back of goondas. They may be merely asked to represent against main charges arising out of evidence collected. Court observed: “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 facts 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 matters, the girls would have had to go under the constant fear of molestation by the male students who were capable of such indecencies...........” (emphasis added) 32. These authorities in Avinash Nagra (supra) and in Hira Nath Mishra (supra) have been followed in several subsequent authorities and recently by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Bhishambhar Dayal Gupta v. Visitor/President of India, Aligarh Muslim University and others, 2005 (4) ESC 2284 . 33. In the present case, petitioner was a Principal of a Secondary Educational Institution where girl students were also studying. Bhishambhar Dayal Gupta v. Visitor/President of India, Aligarh Muslim University and others, 2005 (4) ESC 2284 . 33. In the present case, petitioner was a Principal of a Secondary Educational Institution where girl students were also studying. Complaints of indecent sexual behaviour and molestation on the part of Principal with girls students was confirmed in summary inquiry conducted by Committee constituted by Authorities of KV Sangathan who is authorized to do so under the rules. This material was made available to petitioner alongwith accusation and he was given opportunity to submit reply in which in a guarded manner he admitted some part of incident with a girl student though not in the same way as was complained by the said girl student. In the entirety of facts and circumstances and material available before competent authority, it found petitioner guilty of allegations and charges levelled against him. In these circumstances, following procedure prescribed in rules which permits dispensation of regular enquiry, petitioner has been terminated. It cannot be said that procedure followed by authority concerned is illegal or there is denial of adequate opportunity of defence particularly when action taken is squarely within the procedure prescribed under Article 81(B) of Education Code for KV. 34. Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on several authorities which basically deals with a situation attracting regular departmental enquiry. In our view, none of these authorities which have been cited or relied on behalf of petitioner is attracted in the case in hand. 35. It is then submitted that punishment order dated 27.1.2001 is non-speaking and reliance is placed upon the judgment in The Siemens Engineering Manufacturing Consolidation Officer of India v. Union of India and others, AIR 1976 SC 1785 and Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudam and others v. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 3 SCC 469 . In our view, it cannot be said that order of punishment is non-speaking inasmuch as entire accusations/allegations were already communicated to petitioner in show-cause notice alongwith material. Since regular departmental enquiry was dispensed with, it did not require the competent authority to pass a detailed order like judgment. 36. It is then contended that entire material was not supplied to petitioner but we find that enquiry report alongwith relevant material was supplied and, therefore, aforesaid submission is also unsustainable. 37. Since regular departmental enquiry was dispensed with, it did not require the competent authority to pass a detailed order like judgment. 36. It is then contended that entire material was not supplied to petitioner but we find that enquiry report alongwith relevant material was supplied and, therefore, aforesaid submission is also unsustainable. 37. Lastly, it is contended that impugned order has been passed with a great delay and at the verge when petitioner was going to retire. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan, AIR 1998 SC 1833 ; Dr. Sohan Lal Arora v. State of Punjab and Haryana, decided on 4.8.2006 in CWP No. 10490 of 2007 (O/M); and State of Maharashtra v. H.M. Mazumdar, AIR 1988 SC 842 . In our view looking to the facts of this case, impugned order of termination cannot be interfered only for the reason that it has been passed at the verge of the retirement of petitioner. The charge levelled against petitioner is very serious. Mere delay cannot bring any respite to petitioner. 38. It was next contended that pensionary benefits cannot be withheld but we find, when an order of termination by way of punishment is passed, in absence of any provision of retiral benefits, the same cannot be allowed to petitioner and before us no such provision has been shown which may provide, even if a person is dismissed or removed i.e. terminated by way of punishment, he shall be entitled for any retiral benefit. 39. Last submission is that termination is harsh and excessive but looking to the nature of charges, we are not inclined to agree with submissions. We are satisfied that in present case, Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in law in dismissing Original Application filed by petitioner and confirming termination order. 40. In view of above discussion, we find no legal, factual or otherwise fault in order of Tribunal warranting interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Writ petition, hence, lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 41. There shall be no order as to costs.