Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v State of Karnataka

FACTS

• The case was governed by the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975.

• Respondent 3, Venkappa Gowda, a lecturer, was accused of assaulting Appellant 2 (the Principal of Kuvempu Mahavidyalaya).

• Following a departmental proceeding, Respondent 3 was dismissed from service.

• The dismissed lecturer appealed to the Educational Appellate Tribunal (constituted under Section 10 of the Act). The institution received grant-in-aid from the State.

• A preliminary issue was raised concerning the validity of the departmental proceedings, specifically whether they were in line with Rule 14(2) of the CCA Rules. The Tribunal initially ruled the departmental proceeding invalid in law.

• Subsequently, the management (appellants) adduced evidence to prove the charges against Venkappa Gowda before the Tribunal.

ISSUES

1. Whether the allegation that the appellant (Respondent 3 in SC) had absented from duty unauthorisedly and as to whether his conduct was unbecoming of a lecturer was proven.

2. Whether the evidence established that the appellant had misbehaved and indulged in physical assault upon the Principal.

3. If charges were proven, whether the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the appellant is justified and if not, what punishment is deserved.

JUDGEMENT

• The apex court upheld the dismissal of the employee (Respondent 3).

• The Court declared that the Tribunal would not interfere with employer punishments unless an appropriate case is made out.

• The Tribunal, being inferior to the Court, was bound to follow the Court's decisions applicable to the case.

OBSERVATION

• Limited Jurisdiction of Tribunal: The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is akin to one under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. While it is open to the Tribunal to substitute one punishment by another, it exercises a limited jurisdiction in this behalf.

• Grounds for Interference: The jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment could be exercised only when, inter alia, it is found to be grossly disproportionate.

• Gross Disproportionate Punishment: The Tribunal should interfere only upon arriving at a finding that no reasonable person could inflict such punishment. The Tribunal may also exercise jurisdiction when relevant facts are not taken into consideration by the management which would have a direct bearing on the question of the quantum of punishment.

• Discipline at Workplace: The Court ruled to balance the earlier approach (protecting workers' interests) with the goal of fast industrial growth and workplace discipline. It argued that it may not be proper for employees to break discipline without impunity.

COMMENTARIES

• Nature of Misconduct: The Supreme Court specifically stated that assaulting a superior at a workplace amounts to an act of gross indiscipline.

• Teacher's Conduct: "No management could ignore a serious lapse on the part of a teacher whose conduct should be an example to the pupils," said the Supreme Court.

• Proportionality: The Court concluded: "Assaulting a superior at a workplace amounts to an act of gross indiscipline... Even under grave provocation a teacher is not expected to abuse the head of the institution in 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."