K VENU GOPAL vs DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION on 14 October 2026

ORDER

Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)

The applicant has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: “It is prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal, in the interests of justice, may be please to declare the action of the Respondents conducting enquiry into the charge memo No.F.F.No.JSA-171/NVS(HR)/Estt. III/2025/1685 dt: 21.10.2025 issued by Respondent No.3 by proceedings no PF-JSA-171/2025/NVS(HR)/Estt. III/2114 dt: 10.12.2025 by appointing enquiry officer (respondent no.7) and directing to complete the disciplinary enquiry against the applicant on the same set of charges which are subject matter in crime no. FIR 182/2024 on the file of Nizamsagar Police station, Kamareddy district for the offense punishable under section 75, 79 of BNS, section 9(f) read with sec10 POCSO Act,2010 sec75 of JJ Act, as arbitrary illegal, volition of principles of natural justice, violation of Article 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of Constitution of India as bad in Law and consequently to direct respondents to stall the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant pursuance to charge memo dt:21.10.2025 till finalisation

S SARALADEVI

4 OA 03/2026/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

of criminal proceedings and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that he is Junior Secretarial Assistant/Store Keeper in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya and was initially appointed on 10.04.2000 at Ranga Reddy and ever since he was working in various schools as per his posting orders. The applicant was posted to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Nizam Sagar, Kamareddy on 13.03.2019. The applicant was working as non-teaching staff. While the applicant was working at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Nizam Sagar, Kamareddy, a news article was published in local newspaper dated 25.12.2024 inasmuch as harassment of girl students of Navodaya Vidyalaya by a teacher, Shri Venkateshwara Rao, as such he was transferred on the very next day. The applicant was issued with charge memo dated 21.10.2025 alleging verbal and physical misconduct towards multiple girl students. FIR was also registered against the applicant and he was arrested on 01.01.2025. He was in judicial custody for 33 days and was released after filing of the charge sheet by the police. The applicant was posted to Jawahar

S SARALADEVI

5 OA 03/2026/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

Navodaya Vidyalaya, Chamarajanagar, Karnataka vide office order dated 07.10.2025 conveyed to the applicant vide order dated 08.10.2025 directing him to join Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya , Chamarajanagar, Karnataka, with immediate effect revoking the suspension order. It is the contention of the applicant that the issue involved in the departmental proceedings are the same as that of issue involved in the criminal proceedings. In view of the similarity and identical charges in both proceedings, the delinquent employee is not required to reveal the defence available in the criminal proceedings, in the departmental proceedings. Response to the charge contained in the impugned charge memo would invariably require him to reveal his defence which he may take in the criminal proceedings. Being aggrieved by the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.

3. Learned Counsel Smt.P.K.Kalyani appearing for the applicant, submitted that the charges under domestic inquiry and the criminal proceedings are one and the same. All the witnesses in the criminal proceedings are staff members of the respondents institution in Kamareddy. The issue involves complicated questions of fact and law. Hence the proceedings cannot be proceeded with

S SARALADEVI

6 OA 03/2026/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

simultaneously. The charge sheet is filed on 21.10.2025 as against FIR No.182/2024 dated 31.12.2024 on same and similar charge of misbehaving with the girl students orally and physically under Section 75, 79 BNS, Section 9(f), (p) read with 10 POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act. Though the applicant has given a detailed explanation to the charge Memorandum dated 21.10.2025 and requested not to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings till the criminal case filed against the applicant is decided, Respondent No.7 has been appointed as inquiry authority and the proceedings are going on. Accordingly, seeks for interference of this Tribunal.

4. Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 and DOPT OM dated 29.11.2022.

5. Learned Counsel Shri Vishnu Bhat representing the respondents submitted that the charges against the applicant were founded on specific statements and material collected independently disclosing prima facie misconduct attributable to the applicant

S SARALADEVI

7 OA 03/2026/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

himself and not on the alleged acts or proceedings relating to any other employee. The applicant’s length of service or non-teaching status does not confer any immunity from disciplinary action nor does it dilute the gravity of allegations involving misconduct towards minor students in a residential school environment. Learned Counsel would point out that during the pendency of the present OA, the applicant appeared before the Inquiry Officer and actively participated in the inquiry proceedings and the Inquiry Officer has also forwarded his inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority vide his letter dated 30.06.2026. Hence the OA has rendered infructuous. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. B.K.Meena and others reported in AIR 1997 SC 13 in support of continuation of disciplinary proceedings.

6. In response, learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that inquiry report being submitted before the Disciplinary Authority, no further orders would be passed by the Disciplinary Authority awaiting the decision of the criminal proceedings.

S SARALADEVI

8 OA 03/2026/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. Statement of Articles of charges framed against the applicant in terms of the Charge Memo dated 21.10.2025 (Annexure A5) reads thus: “STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SHRI K VERUGOPAL, JUNIOR SECRETARIAT ASSISTANT, JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA, DISTRICT RAMAREDDY (TELANGANA) ATTACHED TO JNV CHAMARAJNAGAR

ARTICLE-I

That, Shri K Vernugopal, while working as Junior Secretariat Assistant at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, District Kamareddy, has been accused of engaging in verbal and physical misconduct towards multiple girl students. Several statements from students have confirmed that Shri Venu Gopal called them to the office for work- related matters and allegedly touched them inappropriately during those interactions.

These actions constitute sexual harassment and are of a serious violation of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which mandate that government servants maintain professional conduct and appropriate boundaries with students and members of the public.

S SARALADEVI

9 OA 03/2026/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

Thus, by his actions, Shri K Venugopal has violated Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, applicable to the employees of NVS.

ARTICLE-II

That, Shri K Venugopal, while working as Junior Secretariat Assistant at JNV Kamareddy, failed to comply with the established institutional norma regarding the supervision and escorting of female students. Statements indicate that he called students to his office without informing designated authorities and without the presence of a female staff member, as required under institutional safety procedures.

This breach of procedure placed the safety of students at risk and constitutes non-compliance with the safety protocols mandated by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti.

Thus, by his actions, Shri K Venugopal has violated Rule 3(1)(i) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, applicable to the employees of NVS.

ARTICLE-III

That, at. Shri K Venugopal, while functioning as Junior Secretariat Assistant at JNV Kamareddy, is accused of abusing his official position by demanding bribes and gifts from students and their parents during the admission process. Multiple complaints allege that he solicited cash, gifts, and favours such as alcohol and parties from students' families in exchange for facilitating admissions.

S SARALADEVI

10 OA 03/2026/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

Such behaviour constitutes gross misconduct and a direct violation of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which prohibit the solicitation or acceptance of bribes or any form of personal gratification.

Thus, by his actions, Shri K Venugopal has violated Rule 3(1)(i) and Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, applicable to the employees of NVS.

ARTICLE- IV

That, Shri K Venugopal, while serving as Junior Secretariat Assistant at JNV Kamareddy, failed to adhere to the safety and security norms established by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti for female students. Although he claimed that interactions with students were conducted in the presence of female staff members, no corroborative evidence from staff supports this claim. His failure to inform the authorities or ensure proper supervision demonstrates disregard for prescribed safety protocols.

Thus, by his actions, Shri K Venugopal has violated Rule 3(1)(ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, applicable to the employees of NVS.”

9. The charge sheet filed before the Additional District and Sessions Court, refers to the offences punishable under Section 75, 79 BNS, Section 9(f) (p) read with 10 of POCSO Act and Section 75 of JJ Act.

S SARALADEVI

11 OA 03/2026/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

10. It is not in dispute that now the inquiry has been concluded and inquiry report has been submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. In Capt. M.Paul Anthony supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically observed as under: “11. Learned counsel for the respondents has, however, contended that the respondents were under no obligation to stay the departmental proceedings and await the result of the criminal case as there was no legal bar in holding the departmental proceedings simultaneously with the proceedings in the criminal case, particularly as the level of proof in both the proceedings is different and the purpose with which the departmental proceedings are conducted is also not identical with the purpose with which the criminal case is prosecuted for an offence committed by the employee.

12. This question, as observed earlier, is of a perennial nature and has arisen more often than not in spite of the judicial pronouncements, specially by this Court, having settled the question and provided the answer. Still, the problem is raised either by the employer or by the employee in one or the other form. In the instant case, the order of dismissal had already been passed before the decision of the criminal case which ultimately resulted in the acquittal of the appellant. Whether the acquittal coupled with other circumstances, specially ex-parte proceedings, of the case, will have the effect of vitiating the departmental proceedings

S SARALADEVI

12 OA 03/2026/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

or the order of dismissal passed against the appellant, is the question which is to be considered in this appeal.

13. As we shall presently see, there is a consensus of judicial opinion amongst the High Courts whose decisions we do not intend to refer in this case, and the various pronouncements of this Court, which shall be copiously referred to, on the basic principle that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously with a little exception. As we understand, the basis for this proposition is that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas. Whereas in the departmental proceedings, where a charge relating to misconduct is being investigated, the factors operating in the mind of the Disciplinary Authority may be many such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent or the other staff, the standard of proof required in the those proceedings is also different than that required in a criminal case. While in the departmental proceedings the standard of proof is one of preponderance of the probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. The little exception may be where the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common without there being a variance.”

S SARALADEVI

13 OA 03/2026/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

11. Further, considering the judgments holding the field, it has been summarised as under: “(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.

(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.

(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet.

(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.

(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were

S SARALADEVI

14 OA 03/2026/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.”

12. In the light of this judgment, it is crystal clear that disciplinary proceedings and proceeding in criminal case can proceed simultaneously, though separately, as there is no bar for conducting the same simultaneously.

13. As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag vs. G.M., (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., reported in (2005) 7 SCC 764, “Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings criminal and departmental are entirely different and operate in different fields and have different objectives, whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain

S SARALADEVI

15 OA 03/2026/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused 'beyond reasonable doubt', he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of 'preponderance of probability'. Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation.”

14. As per Para-4 of the OM dated 01.08.2007 referred to in Para 2.3 of the OM dated 29.11.2022, it is observed thus:

“2.3 In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sarvesh Berry [2004 (10) SCALE Page 340], it has been held in Para 9 that “it is not desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may

S SARALADEVI

16 OA 03/2026/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the back drop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental inquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law.”

15. Similarly, Para 2.4 of the said OM refers to Para-5 of the OM dated 21.07.2016, it is stated that “in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., the Supreme Court has observed that departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.”

16. A combined reading of these two paragraphs makes it clear that there is no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental inquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law.

17. The apprehension of the applicant that in the course of the departmental proceedings, he will have to take a defence which are likely to adversely affect him in his defence in the criminal case, does

S SARALADEVI

17 OA 03/2026/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

not exists now in view of the inquiry already conducted and inquiry report submitted before the Disciplinary Authority. Hence Disciplinary Authority reaching a logical conclusion in the matter does not constitute grounds for postponing the departmental inquiry proceedings.

18. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the case. Resultantly, OA stands dismissed.

No order as to costs.

sd/-

sd/- (DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)

MEMBER(A)

MEMBER(J) sd.

S SARALADEVI