No-detention policy under RTE Act cannot retrospectively validate prior unauthorized award of grace marks.

The petitioner, while serving as Principal at Kendriya Vidyalaya (KV) AFS Bawana (2005-06), was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry for five charges, primarily involving the unauthorized award of excessive grace marks to a student (Master Rohit) and tampering with answer sheets

On 01.05.2009, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a major penalty: demotion to the post of Vice Principal and debarment from further promotion until retirement

The Appellate Authority affirmed this on 02.03.2010

The petitioner challenged these orders before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT issued a split verdict: the Judicial Member quashed the charges, while the Administrative Member dismissed the OA

A Third Member (Judicial) concurred with the Administrative Member, resulting in the dismissal of the OA

The petitioner approached the High Court, contending that a "no-detention policy" in force during 2005-06 made the detention of the student impossible, thereby negating the motive for the alleged misconduct

1. Whether the "no-detention policy" under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, was applicable to the academic year 2005-2006

2. Whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority regarding Charge No. 1 (unauthorized award of grace marks) were supported by evidence and legally sustainable

3. Whether the penalty of demotion to a lower post was disproportionate or dehors the governing service rules

The court applied Section 16 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, noting it introduced the "no-detention policy" only in 2009.

It primarily relied on Article 106 of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, which limits grace marks to a maximum of 10 in aggregate and 5 per subject for Classes VI to VIII.

Procedurally, the court applied Rule 11(vi) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, which empowers the Disciplinary Authority to reduce a government servant to a lower grade or post as a major penalty.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the "no-detention policy," finding that Section 16 of the RTE Act was enacted in 2009 and had no retrospective application to the 2005-06 academic year.

Regarding Charge No. 1, the Court observed that Article 106 of the KV Education Code strictly capped grace marks at 10, yet the petitioner awarded significantly higher marks (9 in Science, 7 in English, and 8 in Maths) to ensure the student’s promotion.

The Court found the inquiry procedurally sound, noting that witnesses (including the examination in-charge) testified that the petitioner forcibly took charge of the examination room and tampered with records.

Following established principles of judicial review, the Court held it could not re-appreciate evidence or substitute the findings of the Disciplinary Authority when the inquiry followed the prescribed procedure and was based on "some evidence".

The Court held that Charge No. 1 was conclusively proven by evidence and that the petitioner’s actions as a Principal were "capricious" and contrary to the behavior expected of a role model.

The Court further held that the penalty of demotion was valid under Rule 11(vi) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and was not disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.