KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ANR.versusSATBIR SINGH MAHLA

                                         [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
                    mental tension for which he had submitted his written E
                    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
                         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.
          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
          MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. Leave granted.
D
         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.
         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
        KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ANR. v.                   633
        SATBIR SINGH MAHLA [MARKANDEY KATJU, 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
     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 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.