Dismissal of a teacher for corporal punishment upheld

New Delhi, Nov 9 (UNI) The Supreme Court has upheld the termination of services of Physical Education Teacher(PT) working in a Central school who first forced a IX standard student to do PT exercises against medical advice and when the boy failed to do the same due to his poor physical condition subjected him to severe beating.

A bench comprising Justices G P Mathur and A K Mathur putting an end to over 31 year old incident set aside the Bombay high court judgment dated March 5,2002 allowing the appeal of the respondent Arunkumar Madhavrao Sinddhaye and setting aside the termination order dated March 21,1975.

The appellant Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan (KVS) terminated the services of the respondent after holding a detailed inquiry in which 8 students were examined.

The victim V.K. Srinivasalu, son of Capt. V.K. Balasubramanyam was examined at Army Hospital, Pune after he complained of serious chest pain on Feb. 20,1975 and doctors advised him not to do PT drills at least for a week. This was shown to the class teacher who gave a note in writing to the PT teacher exempting the child from PT and other exercises.

During inquiry it also transpired that it was not the first time that the respondent had meted out corporal punishment. Earlier also Lt Col G V Lucas had lodged complaints against the respondent and the Principal had promised to stop the malpractice of corporal punishment.

Eight students including the victim were examined and the respondent refused to give his statement when asked to give the same.

The respondent filed a suit in the civil court which was dismissed.

The main ground of challenge to the termination was that entire enquiry was held behind his back and he was not heard at all which is violative of the principle of natural justice.

The apex court in its judgment dated Oct.31 observed,"The high court seems to have proceeded on a wholly wrong basis and has treated the enquiry which was only a preliminary or fact finding enquiry into a regular disciplinary enquiry, which was not the case here. In these circumstances the judgment of the high court is wholly erroneous in law and has to be set aside." UNI AKS/SC RP PM1852