KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ANR. versus SATBIR SINGH MAHLA

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 631 · Decided: 29-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 631 
-, ' ... 
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ANR. 
A 
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 
F 
increments for five years with cumulative effect. High 
Court upheld the order of Tribunal. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
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] 
B 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1666 
of 2008. 
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. 
c 
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 
-
i. 
judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench dated 
31.1.2006 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3812 of 2002. 
E 
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 
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 
"' 
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ANR. v. 
SATBIR SINGH MAHLA [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.) 
633 
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 
the respondent committed the act of misconduct under mental 
8 
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 

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