Unruly, Violent Behaviour Cannot Be Norm; High Standard Of Discipline Expected In Educational Institutions: Bombay HC

In the case at hand, the petitioner, who had been appointed as a watchman at Sree Narayan Guru College was later promoted to the position of Library Attendant in 2003. However, his tenure was marred by significant disciplinary issues, including abusive behavior towards colleagues and professors, disruptive conduct during a blood donation camp, and interference with lectures.

A Bench of Justice RM Joshi said, “Without doubt, distinction will have to be made in a factory and educational institution and different yardsticks would have to be applied for the maintenance of discipline. An educational institution is a place, which would expect high standard of discipline to set an example for the students. Similarly, such discipline is absolutely necessary to built and maintain reputation of any Educational Institution.”

The Court confirmed the Mumbai University and College Tribunal’s (MUCT) judgment, asserting that the punishment was appropriate given the attendant's proven misconduct.

The Court noted, “Learned Tribunal, after taking into consideration, the Standard Code Rules applicable to the petitioner and the riotous and disorderly behaviour conducted by him, has held that the petitioner has not only misbehaved during the Blood Donation Programme but also prevented Professor Kadam from going to lecture and went to the limit of threatening him to finish him through goons. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner not shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved against him”

Advocate SK Tripathi appeared for the petitioner and Advocate S. C. Naidu appeared for the Respondents.

The Court remarked, “No disorderly behaviour could be tolerated from any employee in any establishment and in no circumstances in an educational institution. Unfortunately, nowadays disorderly, rowdy behaviour, seems to get encouragement. It is high time to send a clear message in the society that such a rude, unruly, violent behaviour cannot be allowed to become an accepted norm. If this is allowed to be accepted, then, it will not only give license to the employees to behave in such manner but that will also cause dent to the image of the educational institutions, which would have serious repercussions. Moreover for causing interference in punishment, the same should not only be disproportionate to the charge but shockingly disproportionate which in this case is not.”

The High Court’s bench reviewed the evidence and found sufficient grounds to uphold the Tribunal’s decision, which had deemed the dismissal a fitting response to the petitioner’s actions.

The Court noted that while disorderly behavior might be tolerated in some workplaces, it is unacceptable in educational environments. The Court said, “If the conduct of the workman in factory is also not accepted in such manner, question of taking any lenient view in respect of conduct of petitioner, an employee of an educational institution does not arise. This Court therefore concurs with the view taken by learned Tribunal about punishment imposed upon petitioner being not shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct.”

The Court observed that any leniency towards the petitioner’s actions was unwarranted, given the nature of the misconduct and the importance of maintaining order in educational settings.

Cause Title: Mallinath Vithal Vathakar v. The Registrar, University of Mumbai & Ors., [2024:BHC-AS:34013]

Appearance:

Respondents: Advocates SC Naidu, Rahul D Oak, Pradeep Kumar, Gunjan and Assistant Government Pleader SD Rayrikar