HOMBE GOWDA EDN TRUST AND ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 937 · Decided: 16-12-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

HOMBE GOWDA EON TRUST AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 16, 2005 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Service law: 
Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 
1975: 
c 
Termination of service-On disciplinary grounds-Dismissal of lecturer 
for thrashing principal and using abusive language-Validity of-Held: 
Protection of workers' right is no longer the sole avowed object of the justice 
delivery system-Discipline at the work place is an equally, if one more,· D 
important feature-It is not proper to break discipline with impunity-Assaulting 
a superior at a workplace amounts to an act of gross indiscipline-Hence, 
dismissal upheld. 
Practice and Procedure: 
Appeal-Right of-Appeal against High Court Order-Time to comply E 
with order of High Court granted-Held: Extension of time by itself does not · 
preclude an aggrieved party to file an appeal before Supreme Court. 
Responden.t No. 3-lecturer was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding 
on an allegation that he had assaulted the Principal of Appellant No. 2 
with 'chappal'. Respondent No. 3 was found guilty of the charge and F 
dismissed from service. An appeal was preferred by respondent No. 3 . 
before the Educational Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 10 
of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) 
Act, t 975. The Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal and awarded the 
punishment of withholding of three increments only and directed payment G 
of back wages. High Court while upholding the Tribunal's order directed 
payment of back wages to the extent of 60% only. Hence the appeal. 
On behalf of respondent No. 3, it was contended that the 
Management had sought for time for complying with the order of the High 
937 
H 
938 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Court which having been granted, the Appellants were estopped and 
precluded from filing this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Assaulting a superior at a workplace amounts to an act 
B of gross indiscipline. The respondent is a teacher. Even under grave 
provocation a teacher is not expected to abuse the head of the institution 
is a filthy language and assault him with a chappal. Punishment of 
dismissal from services, therefore, cannot be said to be wholly 
disproportionate so as to shock one's conscience. [944-C] 
c 
2. Indiscipline in an educational institution should not be tolerated. 
Only because the Principal of the institution had not been proceeded 
against, the same by itself cannot be a ground for not exercising the 
discretionary jurisdiction by this Court. It may or may not be that the 
Management was selectively vindicate but no Management can ignore a 
D serious lapse on the part of a teacher whose conduct should be an example 
to the pupils. (948-F) 
3. This Court has come a long way from its earlier view points. The 
recent trend in the decisions of this Court seek to strike a balance between 
E the earlier approach of the industrial relation wherein only the interest 
of the workmen was sought to be protected with the avowed object of fast 
industrial growth of the country. In several decisions of this Court it has 
been noticed that how discipline at the workplaces/industrial undertaking 
received a set back. In view of the change in economic policy of the 
country, it may not now be proper to allow the employees to break the 
F discipline with impunity. Our country is governed by rule of law. All 
actions, therefore, must be taken in accordance with law. Law declared 
by this Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India 
categorically demonstr1ttes that the Tribunal would not normally interfere 
with the quantum of punishment imposed by the, employers unless an 
G appropriate case is made out therefor. The Tribunal, being inferior to that 
of this Court, was bound to follow the decisions of this Court which are 
applicable to the fact of the present case in question. The Tribunal can 
neither ignore the ratio laid down by this Court nor refuse to follow the 
same. [948-G-H; 949-A-C] 
H 
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem heavy Engineering Works (P) 
HOMBE GOWDA EON TRUST v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [SINHA, J.] 939 
ltd., l199716 SCC 450, Ajay Kumar Bhuyan v. State ofOrissa, 1200311 SCC A 
707 and Mis. D. Navinchandra v. Union of India, 119871 3 SCC 707, relied 
on. 
Management of Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor 
Sangh, JT (2004)

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.