Unfortunate That Rowdy & Disorderly Behaviour By Educational Institute Employees Has Become An Accepted Norm: Bombay High Court

In a significant order, the Bombay High Court while upholding the punishment of a college library attendant for 'misconduct' within the campus, observed that nowadays 'disorderly, rowdy behaviour' of employees in schools and colleges has become an accepted norm, which has only brought disrepute to the institutions.

Single-judge Justice RM Joshi while upholding the September 23, 2008 judgment of the Mumbai University and College Tribunal (MUCT), said the punishment upheld by the tribunal of dismissing the petitioner from service, was 'proportionate' to his 'proved' misconduct.

"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 judge said in his August 13, order.

In the instant case, the judges noted that the petitioner was an employee of a college and thus observed that no disorderly behaviour could be tolerated.

"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 single judge highlighted.

Background:

According to the petitioner, on October 19, 1996, he was appointed as a watchman with the Sree Narayan Guru College in Chembur, Mumbai. After completion of two years period of probation, his services were confirmed and subsequently, the college issued an order dated June 13, 2003, and appointed the petitioner as a Library Attendant on a post reserved for the Scheduled Caste (SC).

However, soon after joining as a Library Attendant, the petitioner allegedly misbehaved with colleagues, abused professors, picked up quarrels with most of his colleagues, once disrupted a blood donation camp in the college and even stopped a professor from conducting lectures in class.

The bench noted that there was enough material on record, which proved the petitioner's misconduct.

"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 Tribunal about punishment imposed upon petitioner being not shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct," the single-judge held.

Appearance:

Advocate SK Tripathi appeared for the Petitioner.

Advocates SC Naidu, Rahul D Oak, Pradeep Kumar and Gunjan represented the University of Mumbai.

Assistant Government Pleader SD Rayrikar represented the State.

Case Details: Mallinath Vithal Vathakar vs The Registrar, University of Mumbai (WP/7268/2008)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment