What was the main misconduct in this case?

A lecturer assaulted the Principal with a chappal. This was treated as gross indiscipline at the workplace.

Can tribunals change a dismissal to a lighter penalty under Section 11A?

Only in rare cases. They may interfere if the punishment is wholly disproportionate or shocks one’s conscience.

Does provocation excuse a teacher’s physical assault?

No. Teachers must show restraint. Discipline in educational institutions is paramount.

Did the Supreme Court restore the dismissal?

Yes. It set aside the Tribunal and High Court and restored dismissal. The appeal was allowed, with no costs.

What if the Principal was also at fault?

Selective action against one person does not clear another’s proven misconduct. Each case is judged on its own proof.

Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka

Supreme Court of India 2006 (2006) 1 SCC 430 Labour / Service Discipline ~7 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi | India | Published: 23 Oct 2025

teacher assault Section 11A proportionality

Quick Summary

Core point: A lecturer hit the Principal with a chappal. A proper inquiry proved this. He was dismissed. The Tribunal and High Court cut the penalty. The Supreme Court said: for assault in a college, dismissal is justified.

Law check: Tribunals may change punishment under Section 11A only if the penalty is wholly disproportionate or shocks the conscience. Here, the penalty fit the misconduct.

Issues

Was dismissal for assault on the Principal justified?
Did the Tribunal and High Court wrongly reduce dismissal to a lighter penalty?
How far can Section 11A go in changing punishment for proven misconduct?

Rules

Assault = Gross indiscipline: Provocation does not excuse violence by a teacher in an educational setting.
Section 11A limits: Interference only if punishment is wholly disproportionate or shocks one's conscience.
Proportionality: Serious misconduct can merit dismissal; not arbitrary where discipline is vital.
Selective action: Not acting against the Principal does not wipe out the lecturer’s proven misconduct.

Facts (Timeline)

View Image

Institution: Kuvempu Mahavidyalaya, run by Hombe Gowda Educational Trust.

Law in force: Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline & Control) Act, 1975.

Incident: Lecturer Venkappa Gowda hit the Principal with a chappal during a dispute on the attendance register.

Inquiry: Departmental inquiry found him guilty; penalty: dismissal.

Tribunal: Allowed evidence; held misconduct proved but cut penalty to withholding three increments + reinstatement with back wages.

High Court: Misconduct upheld; adjusted back wages to 60% due to near retirement.

Supreme Court: Management appealed; asked to restore dismissal.

Arguments

Appellants (Management & State)

Assault on a superior is grave; dismissal is proper.
Section 11A: No power to reduce unless punishment is shockingly harsh.
Discipline in colleges must be strict for students and staff.

Respondent (Lecturer)

Provocation and circumstances should reduce punishment.
Tribunal rightly used Section 11A to soften penalty.
Alleged fault of Principal should be considered.

Judgment (Held)

View Image

Assault = gross indiscipline. A teacher must show restraint even if provoked.
Section 11A: Use it sparingly. Interfere only if punishment is wholly disproportionate.
Proportionality: For physical assault in a professional setting, dismissal is not excessive.
Selective action: Not punishing the Principal does not cure the lecturer’s misconduct.

Final Outcome	Details
Appeal Allowed	Supreme Court set aside Tribunal & High Court. Dismissal restored. No order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a teacher assaults a superior at work, discipline of the institution outweighs sympathy. Unless the penalty shocks the conscience, courts and tribunals should not reduce dismissal.

Why It Matters

Protects the learning environment by setting a clear red line on violence.
Clarifies that Section 11A is not a free pass to dilute proven serious misconduct.
Reinforces the proportionality test for workplace discipline.

Key Takeaways

Violence is grave misconduct in educational institutions.
11A interference only for penalties that are outrageously harsh.
Provocation ≠ license to assault a superior.
Selective discipline elsewhere does not erase your proven fault.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “ASSAULT = DISMISS”

Act: Physical assault is serious.
Standard: 11A changes only if punishment shocks.
Setting: In colleges, discipline first.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Was dismissal for assault valid? Could 11A reduce it? Did lower forums overstep?

Rule: Assault = gross indiscipline; 11A only for shocking penalties; proportionality governs.

Application: Inquiry proved assault; in an academic space, dismissal fits seriousness; no shock to conscience.

Conclusion: Dismissal restored; appeals allowed.

Glossary

Section 11A: Allows limited review of punishment in industrial disputes; used only if penalty is grossly harsh.
Proportionality: Punishment should fit the misconduct; very serious acts can justify dismissal.
Selective action: Acting against one person but not another does not erase proven guilt of the first.

Student FAQs

Teachers shape student conduct. Violence destroys discipline. The Court gives strong protection to the academic environment.

Only when the penalty is so harsh that it shocks the conscience. Routine interference is not allowed.

No. Even if provoked, teachers must act with restraint. Physical assault crosses the line.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Lack of action against the Principal does not erase the lecturer’s proven assault.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal and High Court, and restored the dismissal. No costs.

CASE_TITLE: Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka; Section 11A; dismissal for assault
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: proportionality; tribunal powers; workplace discipline; Karnataka education law