ISSUE:
Whether the dismissal of Respondent No.3 (Venkappa Gowda) for assaulting the Principal was justified?
Whether the Tribunal and High Court erred in modifying the punishment of dismissal to withholding three increments?
Whether the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act extends to interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed for proven misconduct?
RULE:
Assaulting a superior at the workplace amounts to gross indiscipline. Even under provocation, a teacher is not expected to engage in physical assault. Maintenance of institutional discipline is paramount.
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to interfere with punishment is limited. It can substitute punishment only if it is “wholly disproportionate” or “shocks one’s conscience.” A reasonable employer could justifiably impose dismissal for such misconduct.
The principle of proportionality does not shield grave misconduct. While punishment must not be arbitrary, assault in a professional setting warrants serious consequences, and dismissal is neither excessive nor unheard of.
Selective disciplinary action against one party does not invalidate action against another. The failure to proceed against the Principal does not mitigate the Respondent’s proven misconduct.