A teacher sought information regarding departmental inquiry initiated against him - CIC: The respondent authority not to take any repetitive RTI application on this subject from this appellant and reject them forthwith with reference to this order
Appellant is present along with Mr. K.N.Midha. The Public Authority is represented by Mrs. Manju Goel, DEO, Shri C.Bheemanna, PIO, Andhra Education Society School and Mr. M.S.Kasana, Advocate.
2. Appellant sought information with respect to departmental inquiry initiated against him, relating to details of name and contact number of the Govt Nominee as a member of DAC, copy of report submitted by first finding committee, minutes of DAC regarding acceptance and rejection of report etc through 12 points.
PIO response: CPIO gave a pointwise reply.
Ground for First Appeal: Unsatisfied by the CPIO reply.
Ground For Second Appeal : Unsatisfied by the information furnished and no order received from the FAA.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
3. Both the parties made their submissions. It is yet another case of abuse by a teacher who was compulsorily retired for misbehavior with girl students. The order dated 30th August 2014 after due inquiry stated: “Mr K Samsonu (Appellant) while functioning as PGT (Maths) for classes XI and XII during the period 2010 to 2012 abused his position as teacher to cause sexual harassment of the students through his inappropriate physical contact, intemperate, abusive and sexually colored remarks towards the girl students”…”The said acts of misconduct on the part of Shri K. Samsonu, PGT Maths tantamount to unbecoming of a teacher, which constitute an act of moral turpitude and violation of Code of Conduct prescribed for teachers under Rule 123 (b)(xvii) of the Delhi School Education Rules 1973”.
4. It was also established through depositions of the girl students that he used to inflict corporal punishment, exhibiting cruel behavior (such as hitting with dusters) towards girl students, usage of vulgar, obscene and abusive language. The NGP Nyaya Path also claimed to have evidence in the form of affidavit about his sexual misconduct.
5. Thereupon, the Andhra Education Society Dr Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Senior Secondary School management committee imposed punishment of compulsory retirement on this teacher. The management represented that the appellant exhibited most unethical and cruel attitude in insisting on a male lawyer to defend his case. The Board of Inquiry advised him to engage female defence assistant to cross examine students or alternatively give the questions for cross examining the students, as the students were of tender age and the subject is very sensitive, i.e. sexual harassment. In protest he refused to cross examine. In Hira Nath Mishra v Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi (1973)II LLJ 111 SC, the Supreme Court held principles of natural justice were not inflexible and may differ in different circumstances...the cross examination need not be done necessarily in the presence of delinquent ...”The court also held that petitioner would be entitled to cross examine the witnesses who were earlier examined by the Inquiry Officer, through a female defence assistant of his choice. He would however, not be present at the time of their cross examination. If the petitioner does not avail services of a female defence Assistant, he will submit a questionnaire giving the questions he wants the witnesses to answer, and the answers to questions will be obtained by the inquiry committee. The petitioner will not be present at that time..”
6. After this, the appellant went on making acrimonious allegations against board of Inquiry, which has to conclude and finalize the report as the appellant registered protest. Then a show cause notice was issued to appellant, his explanation was considered and the Managing Committee took a lenient view and imposed penalty of compulsory retirement.
7. The Commission heard submissions from both appellant and respondent, and found that the appellant is bent upon harassing the school management in revenge to the action initiated against him, though of lenient. Sexual harassment is not only a misconduct but also a crime, for which appellant should have been prosecuted.
8. The Commission found no remorse or repent on the part of appellant, who continued to exhibit his cruel and harassing tendency even before the Commission with shouting at top of his voice and making all sorts of allegations. It is a shame that a teacher shamelessly misuses the RTI for his vengeance against authorities who took action against proven charge of sexual harassment. This kind of appellants do not deserve any sympathy.
9. The Commission finds all his points of RTI question have a tendency of parallel cross examination of inquiry officers and deserves no information as his request for information lacks public interest .
10. His appeal is rejected with admonition of the appellant and Commission directs the respondent authority, not to take any repetitive RTI application on this subject from this appellant and reject them forthwith with reference to this order. The Commission also directs the respondent school authority to put this order along with the report of inquiry against him, in their official website under the heading of misuse of RTI by a delinquent teacher. The Commission recommends the school authorities to evolve a perfect mechanism to select teachers with character and avoid teachers like appellant in this case and also not to be lenient against teachers for proven misconduct such as sexual harassment. The Authorities should explore legal action against appellant if he resorts to any further harassment.
11. In view of the above, the Commission dismisses the appeal.
Citation: Shri K. Samsonu v. Andhra Education Society Sr.Sec.School in Case No. CIC/SA/A/2014/1496