SHRI NINGTHOUJAM PALIN vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 29 September 2026

ORDER

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

This O.A. has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: “8.i to issue Rule Nisi Calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to quash and set aside the Summary Trial Proceeding and the consequential

Order

bearing No.14029/8/2025-Estt-III/149-153 Dated 22 January, 2026 (at Annexure-A/7) being illegal and arbitrary.

ii. Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant back into service with all consequential benefits.

iii. Call for records;

iv. Pass further order or direction appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. The Main grievance of the applicant is that he was terminated from service vide impugned Order dated 22/01/2026 (Annexure-A/7) in alleged exercise of power by the respondents drawing reference to a Notification dated 20/01/2/1993 (At Annexure-A/10) where the requirements of holding departmental enquiry was dispensed with in violation of the principle of natural justice. The departmental enquiry by duly following the procedures prescribed in the CCS

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

(CCA) Rules is required to be conducted but it was dispensed with illegally and arbitrarily by the respondents.

3. In the year 2025, while the applicant was working as TGT (Music) in the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Ukhru-II, Manipur, the Deputy Commissioner, NVS, RO, Shillong issued order dated 31/07/2025 thereby placing the applicant under suspension in exercise of power conferred under sub rule(1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965. Thereafter, by an order dated 16/09/2025, applicant was informed of a summary trial against him. On the basis of an alleged complaint, a summary trial was held against the applicant in the year 2025. The Deputy Commissioner i/c, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, R.O. Shillong vide communication dated 01/01/2026 forwarded a Memorandum dated 31/1/2/2025 along with a copy of the key points of the enquiry report of the summary trial and asked the applicant to furnish his comments/submissions by 15/1/2026. From the Key points of the summary trial, it is very clear that that the Summary Trial Committee had concluded that the applicant misused his position of privilege as a Music

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

teacher to sexually abuse the girls and the fact of sexual abuse was established, which is an offence under the POCSO Act. The Committee summarizes that the applicant is not fit to continue in government service particularly in co-educational residential school system.

4. In compliance of the letter dated 01/01/2026, applicant submitted his Written Statement dated 10/01/2026 and denied the charges leveled against him. In the said Written Statement, applicant also had requested to set aside the findings of the Summary Trial Committee dated 26/11/2025 as according to the applicant, it was perverse and not tenable in the eyes of law. However, without considering the Written Statement dated 26/1/2026, the respondents had issued the order dated 22 January,2026 thereby terminating the applicant from service and communicated the same to the applicant vide letter dated 22/01/2026.

5. As per the applicant, since the respondents had constituted a Summary Trial Committee and conducted Summary Trial by invoking a Notification dated 20.12.1993

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

and issued the termination order dated 22.01.2026, his right under the CCS (CCA) Rules for a proper departmental enquiry and the right to appeal against the termination order dated 22.01.2026 have been forfeited. Further, report of the Summary Trial against him is stigmatic and bad in law and on the basis of the report, the respondents issued the termination order dated 22.01.2026 illegally and arbitrarily by invoking a Notification dated 20.12.1993. Hence, the findings of the Summary Trial Committee are perverse and not tenable in the eyes of law and have casted aspersion on the integrity and character of the applicant.

6. The respondents have filed their written statement and states that JNVs are fully residential co-educational schools set with the objective of providing modern quality education to talented children, predominantly from rural areas. Students, teachers and staff live in the same campus. Most of the JNVs are set up in rural areas, far away from the district headquarters. The Teachers and the Staff are expected to exhibit exemplary moral character before the students. Strict disciplinary measures are being followed to

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

ensure high moral standard among teachers and staff. To ensure the child's safety and security until he or she completes schooling, Principals and staff members are duty- bound to give the highest priority to the safety, security, and health of students. To this end, a set of guidelines titled "Guidelines for Safety and Security of the Children of Navodaya Vidyalayas and the Role of Principals and Staff Members" was circulated with directions that they must be strictly and scrupulously followed by all members of the Vidyalaya staff, and it was clearly stated that any failure to adhere to these guidelines would invite severe disciplinary action. The said guidelines were issued with the specific mandate that they shall be scrupulously followed by all Principals, teachers and staff members of the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas, keeping in view the residential nature of these institutions and the corresponding responsibility to ensure a safe and secure environment for minor students.

7. In the present case, complaints were received from students regarding inappropriate conduct of the applicant towards a minor girl student, and in view of the seriousness of

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

the allegations, the matter was duly examined through a Vidyalaya-level inquiry, followed by a Cluster-level inquiry, and thereafter a summary trial. As recorded in the summary trial report dated 28.11.2025, the proceedings were conducted pursuant to complaints made vide letter dated 17.07.2025 by one Miss Rinshon Makang (Class IX), along with other girl students, alleging immoral behavior on the part of the applicant. The report further reflects that immediate administrative action was taken, including lodging of an FIR and constitution of inquiry committees, with a Vidyalaya-level committee constituted on 18.07.2025 and a Cluster-level Review Committee constituted on 27.07.2025, both of which submitted their respective reports after examining all relevant materials. During the course of these inquiries, the statements of the victim student, other girl students, the House Mistress, the In-charge Principal and the applicant himself were duly recorded, thereby ensuring a fair and transparent process and affording the applicant an opportunity to be heard. Upon consideration of the findings and in light of the gravity of the allegations, the matter proceeded to a summary trial

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

held on 26.11.2025 before the competent authority, wherein all materials were duly evaluated.

8. As per the respondents, the applicant was afforded adequate and reasonable opportunity to participate in the proceedings and to submit his defence, inspect and examine the complaint and other relevant documents and material evidences available on record and the inquiry report along with relevant materials was furnished to him for his comments, which were duly considered before arriving at the final decision. The findings of the inquiry clearly indicated that the applicant's conduct was incompatible with the standards expected in a coeducational residential institution, warranting appropriate disciplinary action. More so, the applicant has neither preferred any appeal nor allowed the statutory process to run its course. The impugned action has been taken strictly in accordance with the Notification dated 20.12.1993 issued by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. Said Notification, which provides for a special procedure including summary inquiry and dispensing with regular departmental proceedings in cases involving moral turpitude towards

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

students, has neither been challenged nor assailed by the applicant in the present proceedings.

9. By filing reply affidavit, applicant reiterates that application dated 22/10/2025 clarifying the charges leveled against him in detail but that clarification were deliberately misinterpreted illegally and arbitrarily and casted aspersions on the character and integrity and the Summary Trial Committee vide its Summary Report had concluded that applicant had misused his position of privilege as a Music teacher to sexually abuse the girls and the fact of sexual abuse was established, which is an offence under the POCSO Act. None of the girls including Miss Rinshon Makang were examined during the Summary Trial and no witnesses were also examined and the applicant was not allowed to cross examined them, the alleged complaint against the applicant was never examined in detail but the Defense statement dated 22/10/2025 submitted by the applicant was misinterpreted and misquoted and the Summary Trial Committee came to the conclusion prejudicially that applicant had misused his position of privilege as a Music

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

teacher to sexually abuse the girls and the fact of sexual abuse was established, which is an offence under the POCSO Act. The Committee summarizes that the applicant is not fit to continue in government service and particularly in co- educational residential school system, as such, the Summary Trial is defective and the Summary Trial Report cannot be relied upon. Applicant also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of (i) Kamlesh J. Mehta Vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Sanghathan dated 21.02.2024 passed by CAT, Ahmedabad Bench in O.A. No. 88/2015; (ii) Harekrushna Giri Vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti dated 27.04.2026 passed by CAT, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No. 225/2022 and prays for a direction of this Tribunal to treat the applicant to have been continuing in service from the date of suspension till his reinstatement and treat the aforesaid period as duty for all purposes including pay.

10. Sri M.D. Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri B. Deb, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. R. S. Choudhury, learned NVS Standing counsel for the respondents were

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

heard at length and examined the entire text of the summary trial observations as well as inquiry report.

11. The applicant's argument that the closure of the police case weakens the administrative action is legally flawed. The record demonstrates that the criminal case was closed because the victim's father accepted the applicant's apology and chose to avoid a protracted trial to safeguard his minor daughter's modesty. The applicant's written and oral apologies before the police authorities constitute a clear admission of the behavior.

12. The Summary Trial Committee's recorded observations are clear. While the applicant denied "bad intentions," he admitted to touching the hands of the victim, having conversations on love with her, and being asked by multiple girl students to stop touching them during music lessons. Under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 (the Nirbhaya Act), changes made to Sections 354(A), 354(B), and 354(C) of the Indian Penal Code explicitly expanded the definition of sexual offenses to include stalking, staring, and unsolicited physical contact. The applicant’s actions meet

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

the benchmark for severe administrative misconduct in an educational setting. In our society, the role of a teacher is held in high regard. A teacher in a co-educational residential campus stands in loco parentis and is entrusted with the safety of young children. An individual who utilizes their position to cross professional boundaries with a minor student cannot be permitted to continue in public educational service. The summary trial procedure followed by the respondents under the valid NVS rules provided an adequate opportunity for the applicant to respond, and the resulting termination order dated 22.01.2026 is fully sustainable.

13. In view of the factual record and the admissions made by the applicant, this Tribunal finds no grounds to interfere with the disciplinary actions taken by the respondents. Accordingly, O.A. stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(MALLIKA ARYA)

(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

PB

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY