http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1666 of 2008

PETITIONER: Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr

RESPONDENT: Satbir Singh Mahla

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/02/2008

BENCH: H.K. Sema & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1666 OF 2008 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8217/2006]

MARKANDEY KATJU, 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 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 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.

5.      The 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.   

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 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 removal order.

7.      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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.  No costs.