In a recent significant legal decision, the High Court at Calcutta issued a ruling that dismissed the allegations of misconduct against a primary school teacher named Anil Kumar Mridha, who had been accused of inappropriate behavior towards a female student. The case was presided over by Justice Suvra Ghosh and Justice Subhendu Samantha.

Anil Kumar Mridha, the individual who filed the petition, was the subject of an internal inquiry due to accusations of inappropriate physical contact with a female student, leading to disruption at the school. The Disciplinary Authority determined Mridha's guilt and imposed a severe penalty, which included his dismissal from service. This judgment was later affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

Nevertheless, the situation in the case underwent a significant shift when it came to light that a separate criminal case had been registered against Mridha under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The criminal case concluded with Mridha's acquittal after a compromise petition was jointly filed by both the victim and the petitioner.

In their ruling, Justice Suvra Ghosh and Justice Subhendu Samanta emphasized the importance of the acquittal in the criminal case, asserting, "The compromise petition submitted by both parties should not be characterized as a contractual agreement. It unequivocally indicates that the petitioner is innocent, and the complaint made by the victim was unfounded and false."

Throughout the legal proceedings, the judges meticulously reviewed the available evidence and legal precedents. They concluded that there was a lack of concrete evidence to substantiate the allegations against Mridha and that the decision to impose a penalty was unjustified as it had no evidential basis.

The judges stated, "It is necessary to highlight the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation concerning the standard of proof in a departmental inquiry, as recorded in the relevant authorities. While disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, they still require some evidence to substantiate the charges."

The judges determined that Mridha's actions, which involved touching the student's shoulders from behind to prevent her from cheating during an examination, lacked any sexual intent and, consequently, could not be categorized as misconduct. Therefore, they annulled the inquiry report and the decisions made by the disciplinary and appellate authorities.

Following the judgment, Anil Kumar Mridha has been instructed to be reinstated in his teaching position with full back wages and other associated benefits. Furthermore, the authorities involved in the case have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 to Mridha as costs.

Case: Anil Kumar Mridha Vs The Union of India And Others, WP.CT/50/2023

Also read: Soumya Vishwanathan Murder case | Delhi Court convicts five men