Judgment : M. Zothankhuma, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned Preliminary Inquiry Report and Summary Inquiry Report and the consequential termination of his service, vide impugned termination order dated 11-07-2014 and the order dated 08-09-2014 rejecting his appeal by the Respondent No. 3. 3. The gist of the case in brief is that a complaint had been submitted by the father of one Miss Alena Stenisla, who was studying in Class V-B in the Kendriya Vidyalaya in Delhi, Bengdubi, West Bengal against the petitioner, who was a teacher, stating that the appellant had tried to molest his daughter on 22-02-2014 in the School room and School bathroom. When she tried to resist, the petitioner threatened the child that he would beat her if she reported the same to anybody. Further, the petitioner (teacher) periodically disturbed his daughter and other children. 4. Subsequent to the above, a 6 (six) member Preliminary Inquiry committee was constituted to verify the complaint made by the child's father. The Preliminary Inquiry Committee, after taking the statements of victim girl, her mother, other girl students and the petitioner, concluded that the petitioner tried to molest the victim girl and that he was habituated to doing such acts. 5. After considering the Preliminary Inquiry report, a Summary Inquiry Committee consisting of 5 (five) members was again constituted under Article 816 of the Education Code of Kendriya Vidyalayas, to inquire into the allegation leveled against the petitioner. The Summary Inquiry Committee thereafter submitted a report after assessing the statements given by the parents, girl students, victim girl, staff members, etc. and concluded that the charge of exhibiting immoral behaviour towards the victim girl stood established. 6. Subsequent to the above Preliminary Inquiry report and Summary Inquiry report, the respondent no. 4 issued a Memorandum dated 06-05-2014 to the petitioner, stating that the respondent no. 4 was of the considered opinion that the petitioner had been indulging in immoral behaviour towards the victim student and a case of moral turpitude had been found against him, because of which, it was necessary to proceed against the petitioner under the Article 81(B) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas. The Memorandum dated 06-05- 2014 also held that the respondent no. The Memorandum dated 06-05- 2014 also held that the respondent no. 4 was of the opinion that it was not expedient to hold a regular inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as it would cause serious embarrassment to the female student and could also cause trauma to her, because of her tender age. Accordingly, holding a regular inquiry for imposing major penalty in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as applicable to employees of Kendriya Vidyalayas, was dispensed with. Vide the Memorandum dated 06-05-2014, the petitioner was given the following documents :- (i) Charges, (ii) Facts in support of the charges, (iii) Statement recorded in the Preliminary Inquiry and Summary Inquiry. (iv) Report of the Preliminary Inquiry and Summary Inquiry. The petitioner was, thus, given an opportunity to submit a representation to the Memorandum dated 06-05-2014, as to why his service should not be terminated under the provisions of Article 81 (B) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas. 7. The petitioner thereafter submitted his representation/reply dated 21-05-2014 to the Memorandum dated 06-05-2014 and stated that the charges against him were fabricated and that the same had been made due to some staff members holding a grudge against him. The petitioner in his representation dated 21-05-2014 has nowhere made any comments regarding the decision to proceed against him under Article 81(B) of the Education Code and in Para 13 and 14 of his representation/reply dated 21/05/2014, he has basically answered to the charges, as follows:- “13. That with respect to the submitted report, this is to mention that during examination by the preliminary enquiry team and summary enquiry team I repeatedly narrated the incidents happens on fifth period on 22.02.2014 that due to shortage of question paper I had been to the staff room for photocopy of the question paper and during this time I noticed thaw two girl coming from scout mela and for the sake of mind class I-C, I instructed them to stay in Class - IC till returning from the staff room and thereafter after came back I instructed them to go to their respective classes. Furthermore, it is to be mentioned that on 22.02.2014 there was a scout mela for this purpose some of the staff and cooks are being engaged in cooking foods for the staff and the students and the place of cooking was just near to the girls' toilet and if the incident happen then they will be the first person as well as the eye witness of this incidents. 14. That with respect it is submitted by me that I am a teacher and I belief that, it is the primary functionary to transmit the intellectual and ethical values to the young. The teacher should try to remove the leaden weights of pride and prejudice, passion and desire which are likely to cloud a student's vision. The devoted teacher is not only concerned with the child's intellectual development but also has the obligation to attend to his moral, emotional and social growth as well and for this I am always very strict about school discipline and teaching learning process which was not liked sometimes by some students and guardians and that's why put in hot water and some are trying to fish troubled water.” 8. Subsequent to the above facts, the respondent no. 4 terminated the service of the petitioner, vide the impugned Memorandum dated 11/07/2014, after considering all the proceedings and the reports made against the petitioner, including the representation/reply submitted by the petitioner and came to a finding that the Summary Inquiry Committee report had established that the petitioner was guilty of showing immoral behaviour towards girls students, which amounted to moral turpitude involving immoral sexual behaviour. The respondent no. 4 also dispensed with holding a regular enquiry under the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 to save the minor girls and their parents from serious embarrassment and mental agony. The relevant para nos. 7, 8 & 9 of the impugned Memorandum dated 11/07/2014 is reproduced herein below, as follows :- “7. The undersigned being competent authority has gone through the report of Summary Inquiry, the preliminary enquiry, statement of victim girl, other girl students, parents, staff members recorded during the course of inquiry, the statement of the accused and all other documents related to the case as well as the points adduced by Shri Harihar Barman in his defence in the reply dated 21.05.2014 to show cause merno dated 05.05.2014. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and available records, the undersigned is of the considered opinion that:- (i) The reasons for false complaint against Shri Harihar Barman is frivolous and light weight since prevailing sense does not make any reason as to why the father would write defamatory and cheap accusation about misdoing with his daughters at the behest of others. On such sensitive malters relating to moral turpitude, no parents/ girl student will come forward to lodge any false complaint against any leacher unless the truth is there. (ii) The case has been considered as per the procedure laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Babban Prasad Yadav Vs. NVS & Others and as per judgment dated 16-8-2010 in SLP No: 4627/2008 KVS Vrs. Rathin Pal, wherein the submissions of KVS have been upheld. (iii) The Inquiry Committee constituted as per the prescribed guidelines and the allegation held as established. Hence the disciplinary proceedings initialed against Shri Harihar Barman under the provisions of Article 81(B) of Education Code for KVs, is in order. A NGO member was also included in the Summary Inquiry Committee lo ensure the impartial inquiry/findings. (iv) Shiri Harihar Barman, has been given reasonable opportunity by providing all the relevant documents to make the effective representation in his delence. (v) Teaching is a noble profession where teaching/non-teaching-employees are expected to be exemplary in every sphere of their life. This kind of immoral behaviour of an employee towards the girl students can never be condoned. Unblemished past service does not permit a teaching/non-leaching employee to behave immorally towards the students. 8. The Summary Inquiry Committee has established the charge that Shri Harihar Barman is guilty of showing immoral behaviour towards girl students, which amounts to moral turpitude involving immoral sexual behaviour. The undersigned agrees with the findings of the Summary Inquiry Committee, In such type of cases, the detailed inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 is dispensed with in order to save the minor girls and they parents from the serious embarrassment and mental agony The undersigned is fully satisfied with the need for dispensing with the inquiry in this case for the type of behaviour exhibited by Shri Harihar Barman, PRT which is highly inappropriate, for which he deserves deterrent punishment. The undersigned is of the view that since this is a very serious misconduct and the same stands proved during the summary inquiry, therefore continuance of services of Shri Harihar Barman, will be hazardous to the congenial atmosphere of the Educational Institution like Kendriya Vidyalaya in general and girl students in particular, and therefore he should not find a place in a reputed institution like KVS where the destiny of tender hearts is shaped and ethics and values in them are infused. 9. Now, therefore, the undersigned being the competent authority in exercise of the powers Conferred upon under Article 81(8) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas hereby terminate the services of Shri Harihar Barman, PRT, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bengdubi (W.B.) with immediate effect. The pay and allowances as admissible under rules, in lieu of notice period be paid to him.” 9. The termination of the service of the petitioner vide the impugned Memorandum dated 11/07/2014 was put to challenge by the petitioner under Article 81(C) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas vide a representation dated 24/08/2014 before the respondent no. 3 (appellate authority). However, the same was rejected by the respondent no. 3 vide order dated 08-09-2014, by holding that the termination of the petitioner on the charge of moral turpitude had been proved beyond doubt. 10. Being aggrieved by his termination and rejection of his appeal, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Guwahati Bench by filing Original Application (OA) No. 040/00037/2015. The learned CAT dismissed the OA No. 040/00037/2015 vide order dated 19-02-2016. The petitioner has now put to challenge before this Court the order dated 19/02/2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 040/00037/2015. 11. The basic case of the petitioner is that the authorities could not have terminated the service of the petitioner, without holding a regular inquiry in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and in this regard, the petitioner's counsel has taken this Court to the Memorandum dated 06-05-2014 which is annexed as Annexure-1, at page no. 98 of the writ petition. On perusing the Memorandum dated 06-05-2014, we find that the petitioner had been asked to show cause why his services should not be terminated under Article 81 (B) of the Education Code. 98 of the writ petition. On perusing the Memorandum dated 06-05-2014, we find that the petitioner had been asked to show cause why his services should not be terminated under Article 81 (B) of the Education Code. On a careful second reading of page 98, we found that some lines were missing in the bottom of page 98 in the writ petition and as such, the last part of the sentence in page 98 was not connecting and making sense with the initial words in page 99. 12. Mr. A. K. Purkayastha, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that his other point of challenge to the dismissal of the petitioner is on the ground that action could have been taken against the petitioner only under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereafter referred to as the POSH Act). He submits that as no action was taken against the petitioner under the POSH Act, the dismissal of the petitioner from service was liable to be interfered with. 13. On the other hand, Mr. S. Biswas, Learned Counsel for the respondents, submits that there is no infirmity with the decision of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner, as he had been found guilty of improper sexual behaviour towards girl students, which amounts to moral turpitude involving immoral sexual behaviour. A teacher who was to teach and protect his girl students cannot be allowed to remain in the school as a predator, that would endanger the safety and dignity of the girl students. 14. We have heard the Learned Counsels for the parties. 15. The first issue that is being taken up is whether the POSH Act is applicable to the facts of this case. Section 2(a) of the POSH Act provides that an “aggrieved woman” means in relation to a workplace, a woman of any age, whether employed or not, who alleges to have been subjected to any act of sexual harassment by the respondent. Section 2(a) of the POSH Act provides that an “aggrieved woman” means in relation to a workplace, a woman of any age, whether employed or not, who alleges to have been subjected to any act of sexual harassment by the respondent. Section 9(1) of the POSH Act states that any aggrieved woman may make, in writing, a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace to the Internal Committee if so constituted, or the local Committee, in case it is not so constituted, within a period of three months from the date of the incident and in case of a series of incidents, within a period of three months from the date of last incident. On the basis of the above provisions of the POSH Act, we are clear that the POSH Act is not applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, a girl student of Class-V cannot be said to be an “aggrieved woman”. A girl of Class-V, who is less than 18 years of age, cannot be said to be a woman. Further, for a girl student of Class-V, the school can never be a workplace, understood and applied in terms of the POSH Act. 16. The above being said, the question of the POSH Act being applicable to the facts of this case, was never an issue raised by the petitioner during the summary inquiry proceedings and appeal proceedings before various fora. This plea is also not found in the present writ petition. 17. On a request made by us to Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondents, for furnishing a complete copy of the Memorandum dated 06-05-2015, we have been furnished a copy of the same. The same is made a part of the record and marked as Annexure ‘X’. On comparing the contents of page 98 of the writ petition with the copy furnished to us (Annexure-X), we find that the following lines are missing in page 98, which are as follows :- “opinion that it is not expedient to hold a regular inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as it would cause serious embarrassment to the female student and could also cause a trauma for her because of her tender age. Accordingly, holding a regular inquiry for imposing major penalty in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 as applicable to employees of KVS, is dispensed with.” 18. Accordingly, holding a regular inquiry for imposing major penalty in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 as applicable to employees of KVS, is dispensed with.” 18. Thus, the bottom of page 98 in it’s complete form reads as follows :- “Whereas, after going through the said report, the undersigned is of the considered opinion that said Shri Harihar Barman, PRT K.V. Bengdubi has been indulging in immoral behavior towards Miss Alena Stenisla of class V-B and a moral turpitude case has been found against him, because of which it is necessary to proceed against him under Article 81(B) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas. The undersigned is also of the opinion that it is not expedient to hold a regular inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as it would cause serious embarrassment to the female student and could also cause a trauma for her because of her tender age. Accordingly, holding a regular inquiry for imposing major penalty in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 as applicable to employees of KVS, is dispensed with” 19. We are quite surprised that the petitioner has not provided the complete page 1 of the memorandum dated 06/05/2014, which is at page 98 of the writ petition. The missing 6 lines in page 98 creates a doubt in our mind, as to whether the said incomplete picture provided in the writ petition was deliberate and intentional. In this regard, it would be profitable to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others , reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 , where it has been stated that the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution, is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He cannot be allowed to play “hide-and-seek” or “pick and choose” facts. If material evidence are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of the Writ Court will become impossible. The court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent the abuse of its process to discharge the Rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merit. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. The court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent the abuse of its process to discharge the Rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merit. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an application requires to be dealt with for Contempt of Court, for abusing the process of the Court. 20. As can be seen from the facts of this case, the issue pertains to the findings made by the Preliminary Inquiry Committee, the Summary Inquiry Committee and the respondent no. 4, that the petitioner was guilty of moral turpitude towards his girl students, which amounted to a serious misconduct. Section 81(B) of the Education Code, which provides for terminating an employee for moral turpitude without resorting to a regular enquiry, states as follows :- “Article 81(B) :- 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. It further provides that wherever and as far as possible, a summary inquiry in the complaint of immoral behavior by a teacher towards the students of Kendriya Vidyalayas may be got investigated by the Complaints Redressal Committees constituted in the Regional offices.” 21. It further provides that wherever and as far as possible, a summary inquiry in the complaint of immoral behavior by a teacher towards the students of Kendriya Vidyalayas may be got investigated by the Complaints Redressal Committees constituted in the Regional offices.” 21. As the issue pertains to misconduct, i.e. immoral behavior/moral turpitude by a teacher towards his students, Article 81(B) can be applied for terminating the services of a teacher and doing away with holding a regular enquiry, on account of the embarrassment that may be suffered by the student or her guardians on some other practical difficulties. As the complaint made against the petitioner involves moral turpitude and the same having been proven by the Preliminary Inquiry and Summary Inquiry, which has been accepted by the respondent no. 4, we do not find any ground to interfere with the decision of the respondent no. 4. The decision of the respondent no. 4 has been taken after following all required procedures and giving the petitioner an opportunity to explain the complaint made against him. 22. The impugned order of termination of the service of the petitioner shows that the competent authority has gone through the report of the summary inquiry, the preliminary inquiry, statement of the victim girl, other girl students, parents, staff and staff members, as well as the statement of the petitioner. The competent authority has also perused all documents related to this case. The preliminary inquiry report has also found the petitioner guilty of the charge of exhibiting immoral behaviour towards his girl students. As such, we do not find any perversity in the findings made by the respondent No. 4, which is based on the reports of the summary/preliminary inquiries and the statements of various persons. 23. In the case of Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 , the Supreme Court has held that in disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not a second Court of First Appeal. The High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India should not venture into re- appreciation of evidence. It can only see whether the inquiry was held by a competent authority and according to the procedure prescribed and further whether there was any violation of the principles of natural justice. The High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India should not venture into re- appreciation of evidence. It can only see whether the inquiry was held by a competent authority and according to the procedure prescribed and further whether there was any violation of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, the inquiry has been held by a competent authority and in terms of the procedure prescribed and further there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. Para 13 of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Gunasekaran (supra ) states as follows :- “ 13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) reappreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” 24. This Court is not sitting as an Appellate Authority to look at whether there has been violation of Principles of natural justice and whether any procedure that was to be followed had not been followed, including giving an opportunity of being heard. The show cause notice that has been issued to the petitioner vide the Memorandum dated 06/05/2014 had been replied to by the petitioner on 21/05/2014. When the authority has gone into the question of facts, after taking into account the reports of the 2 (two) inquiries, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned Preliminary/Summary Inquiry reports, the termination order dated 11/07/2014 and the Appellate Authority order dated 08/09/2014, rejecting the petitioner’s appeal. 25. In view of the reasons stated above, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.