http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BAHADURGARH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KRISHNAN BEHARI AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/02/1996

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1249            1996 SCC  (2) 714  JT 1996 (3)    96        1996 SCALE  (2)698

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.       The respondent was a clerk in the Municipality. He was alleged to  have misappropriated  a sum  of Rs.  1548.78p by falasifying the  accounts. He  was prosecuted  i a  criminal case and  convicted under  Section 409  of the  Indian Penal Code and  sentenced. On  appeal, the  conviction was altered from Section  409 to  Section 468  of the Indian Penal Code. Section 468 reads:      "Whoever commits  forgery intending      that he  document forged  shall  be      used for  the purpose  of cheating,      shall be punished with imprisonment      of either  desecration for  a  term      which may  extend to  7  years  and      shall also be liable to fine."      In view of the said punishment, the Municipal Committee dismissed the  respondent. The  respondent filed  an  appeal before the Director of Local Bodies who, while upholding the correctness  of   the  action,  reduced  the  punishment  to stoppage of  four increments  and has also directed that the period during which the respondent was out of service should be treated  as extra-ordinary  leave. An appeal filed by the Municipal Committee  to the  Commissioner was  dismissed  as incompetent.  A   writ  petition   filed  by  the  Municipal Committee was also dismissed in limine by the High court.      It is obvious that the respondent has been convicted of a serious  crime and  it is  a clear  case attracting  under proviso (a)  to Article  311 (2)  of the  Constitution. In a case of  such nature - indeed, in cases involving corruption there cannot  be any  other punishment  than dismissal.  Any sympathy shown  in such  cases is  totally uncalled  for the opposed to  public interest.  The amount misappropriated may be small  or large;  it is the act of misappropriate that is relevant. The  Director had  interfered with  the punishment

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

under s total mis-apprehension of the relevant factors to be borne in mind in such a case.      Accordingly, this  appeal is  allowed. Judgments of the High Court,  Commissioner and the Director are set aside and the  order   of  the   Municipal  Committee  dismissing  the respondent is restored.      No costs.