Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr. v. Satbir Singh Mahla

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: H.K. Sema
Markandey Katju
Judgment Date: 2008-02-29
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The order of removal passed against the respondent is restored.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
Anr.

Respondents

Satbir Singh Mahla

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. Rajappa

Counsels for Respondents

• Dr. Sushil Balwada

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court decision concerns Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another v. Satbir Singh Mahla, a dispute over the appropriate punishment for a teacher who assaulted the school principal. The respondent, a trained graduate teacher in a Kendriya Vidyalaya, assaulted the principal on 23 February 1999, inflicting a serious injury to the principal’s eye. He submitted a written apology the next day. An inquiry found him guilty, and a removal order dated 1 May 2000 was issued. The respondent challenged the punishment through the Central Administrative Tribunal, which, on grounds of mental tension and with the plea of having a family to maintain, reduced the punishment to withholding three increments for five years with cumulative effect. The Rajasthan High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order. The Supreme Court, however, did not sustain the Tribunal or the High Court: a teacher must be a role model, and an individual who physically assaults the principal is not fit to teach. The Court observed there was no good ground for interference with the removal punishment and reversed the lower courts, restoring the removal. The decision underscores the high standard of discipline expected of teachers in Kendriya Vidyalaya institutions and affirms that public interest and student welfare justify removal for such misconduct. It emphasizes that apology does not mitigate the seriousness of physical assault; while the claim of economic or personal distress is recognized, it cannot override the need to maintain trust and order in educational institutions. The order of appeal is allowed; no costs.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that a teacher must be a role model for students and that physical assault on the Principal constitutes serious misconduct justifying removal. The inquiry report, the charge-sheet, and the findings support removal. The Tribunal's modification of the punishment undermines the discipline required in Kendriya Vidyalaya institutions and undermines student welfare. The High Court's upholding of the Tribunal’s order was erroneous; where misconduct is grave and the offender has shown no sufficient mitigating ground beyond an apology, the governance body’s decision to remove should stand. The appeal should set aside the Tribunal and High Court decisions and restore the removal order as appropriate discipline and public interest require.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent argues that the punishment of removal from service is too harsh given mental tension and family responsibilities; he submitted a written apology; the Inquiry Panel found guilt; the Tribunal considered mitigating circumstances and reduced the penalty; the High Court upheld this reduction. He asks for leniency or quashing the removal.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 631 -, ' ... A ..: ' ## KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ANR. _v._ SATBIR SINGH MAHLA (Civil Appeal No. 1666 of 2008) FEBRUARY 29, 2008 8 [H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] ## _Service Law:_ _Misconduct_ - _Removal_ - _Of Respondent-school teacher for physically assaulting the Principal in his office room and_[c ] _causing serious injury on his eye_ - _Justification_ - _Held: Justified_ - _Respondent not fit to be_ a _teacher._ ~ - Respondent-school teacher physically assaulted the Principal of the school in his office room causing serious D injury on his eye. The next day Respondent submitted a written apology. However, he was charge-sheeted, pursuant to which the Enquiry Officer found him guilty and he was removed from service. The Tribunal held that the Respondent committed the act of misconduct under E mental tension for which he had submitted his written apology and also since he had a family to maintain, the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate. Accordingly the Tribunal quashed the removal order and reduced the punishment to withholding of three increments for five years with cumulative effect. High F Court upheld the order of Tribunal. Hence the present appeal. ## Allowing the appeal, the Court ..,, ~ G **HELD:** A teacher has to be a role model in the society. G He is a 'guru' who sets an example for the students. A person who physically assaults the Principal of the Institution is not fit to be a teacher. He is more like a goonda. Therefore, there was no good ground ·for the 631 H 632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 3 S.C.R. "' A Tribunal to interfere with the punishment of removal awarded to the Respondent. Accordingly the order of removal passed against the Respondent is restored. [Para 8] [633-D, E, F] CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1666 B of 2008. c From the Judgment and final Order dated 31.1.2006 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. C.W.P. No. 3812/2002. S. Rajappa for the Appellants. .. Dr. Sushil Balwada for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench dated 31.1.2006 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3812 of 2002. - 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the E record. 4. The facts of the case are that the respondent in this appeal was working as a Trained Graduate Teacher (hereinafter in short 'TGT Teacher') (Maths) in the service of the appellant F[which ][is ][the Kendriya Vidyalaya. ][On ][23.2.1999 while functioning ] as a TGT teacher (Maths) in the Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Air Force Suratgarh, he physically assaulted the Principal of the school in his office room which caused serious injury on the right eye of the Principal, Shri R.D. Shah. The next day he G[submitted a written apology. However, he was charge-sheeted ] and an inquiry was held against him and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 24.2.2000, a copy of which is atAnnexure P-4 to this appeal. ~ ,, _r_ 5. The Inquiry Officer found the respondent guilty and H accordingly an order of removal from service dated 1.5.2000 633 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ANR. _v._ SATBIR SINGH MAHLA [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.) "' was passed against him by the disciplinary authority. The A respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority which rejected the appeal. 6. The respondent then filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur. The Tribunal was of the view that 8 the respondent committed the act of misconduct under mental tension and he had submitted his written apology and that he has a family to maintain. Hence, the Tribunal was of the view that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate and, instead, the Tribunal reduced the punishment to withholding three increments for a period of five C years with cumulative effect. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the removal order. 7. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court which upheld the view of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ 0 petition. Hence this appeal by way of Special Leave. 8. We regret our inability to uphold the judgment of the Tribunal as well as of the High Court. A teacher has to be a role model in the society. He is a 'guru' who sets an example for the students. A person who physically assaults the Principal of the E Institution is, in our opinion, not fit to be a teacher. He is more like a goonda. In our opinion, therefore, there was no good ground for the Tribunal to interfere with the punishment of removal awarded to the respondent. For the reasons given above, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as F the Tribunal and restore the order of removal passed against the respondent. The appeal stands allowed. No costs. B.B.B. Appeal allowed.