Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr Vs. Satbir Singh Mahla  Insc 316 (29 February 2008)
Sema & Markandey Katju
APPEAL NO 1666 OF 2008 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
8217/2006] MARKANDEY KATJU, J
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.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
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 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 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 at Annexure P-4 to this appeal.
Inquiry Officer found the respondent guilty and accordingly an order of removal
from service dated 1.5.2000 was passed against him by the disciplinary
authority. The respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority which
rejected the appeal.
respondent then filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur.
The Tribunal was of the view that 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 years with cumulative effect. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the
appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court which upheld the view of
the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal by way of
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 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 the Tribunal and restore the order of removal passed against
the respondent. The appeal stands allowed.