http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SANCHALAKSHRI & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VIJAYAKUMAR RAGHUVIRPRASAD MEHTA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/11/1998

BENCH: S.P.BHARUCHA, G.T.NANAVATI, B.N.KIRPAL

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:  JUDGMENT NANAVATI.J. This  appeal  arises  out  of the judgment and order passed by  the  High  court  of  Gujarat  in  Special  Civil Application No.6671  of  1997.    The  High Court upheld the order of the Gujarat Secondary  Education  Tribunal  whereby the order  of  dismissal  of respondent No.  I passed by the appellant was set aside, but modified the substituted  order of stoppage of one increment with future effect by directing stoppage of two increments with future effect. Respondent No.    I was earlier working as a teacher in Pallavi Vidyalaya.  He was declared a surplus teacher  on closure of that institution in 1988.  Under direction of the Director  of  Education  he  was absorbed on 25.11.1988 as a teacher in Durga Vidyalaya run by appellant No.  1.    While joining this  new  School, respondent No.  I did not produce his service book nor was it forwarded by  Pallavi  Vidvalaya to Durga  Vidvalaya.    He was, however, paid his salary’ in the revised pay scale of Rs.  1400-2600 as per the last  pay certificate submitted  by  him.  Durga Vidyalaya had earlier told him to produce his service book as it was necessary for it to verify fixation of his pay and obtain grant  from  the Government.   He  did  not  produce it but Pallavi Vidyalaya forwarded it  lo  Durga  Vidyalaya  on   23.11.1992.      On examination  Durga Vidyalaya noticed that there were certain deficiencies and irresularities  in  if.    The  endorsement regarding  fixation  of  his salary in the revised pay scale was not signed  by  the  competent  authority,  namely,  the District Education  Officer.   There was no signature of the Auditor.  Durga Vidyalaya, therefore, by  its  letter  dated 31.7.93   informed  him  about  the  said  deficiencies  and requested him to get it completed.  By letter dated  4.8.93, he  requested  Durga  Vidyalaya  to give to him his last pay certificate and the service book for  that  purpose.    They were given  to  him.  Within three days (Saturday and Sunday intervening) respondent No.  I returned the service book and informed the School Management  that  all  the  deficiencies have been  removed.   As it was returned within such a short time, Durga Vidyalaya felt some doubt regarding  genuineness of the  signatures  of  the  concerned  authorities.   So it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

called upon him to disclose names of  the  persons  who  had signed the  relevant  endorsements.   On 24.8.93 he informed Durga Vidyalaya that the  District  Education  Officer  Shri S.N.  Parmar  had  signed  the endorsement.  Durga Vidyalaya then wrote to Shri Parmar to  confirm  his  signature.    He denied that  he  had signed, the service book.  It was found to be a forged signature.  Durga Vidyalaya, therefore,  held an  inquiry  after  giving a show cause notice dated 23.9.93 and as all the charges were proved, with prior  approval  of the concerned  authority.  passed an order of termination of his service on 15.3.94. Respondent No.  I challenged that order  before  the Gujarat Secondary  Education  Tribunal.    The Tribunal held that the charges were duly proved and the acts committed  by Respondent No.  I did amount to a serious misconduct; but as Respondent No.   I had done so because of the delay of about four years in fixation of his pay in the revised  pay  scale and because  the service book was given to Respondent No.  I instead of sending it directly to the concerned  authorities and as he was comparatively of young age, termination of his sendee  amounting  to his economic death was not called for. It was of the view that a lenient view should be taken  and, therefore,  held  that stoppage of one increment with future effect would be the proper  punishment.    Accordingly,  the Tribunal partly allowed the application, set aside the order of   termination  and  modified  the  penalty  by  directing stoppage of two increments with future effect. Aggrieved by this order passed by the  Tribunal  the appellants  preferred  a  writ petition to the High Court of Gujarat.  The  High  Court  agreed  with  the  view  of  the Tribunal  that  the penalty imposed was disproportionate but found that the penalty of stoppage  of  one  increment  with future effect  was  rather lenient.  It, therefore, modified that  order  and  imposed  punishment  of  stoppage  of  two increments with future effect. Mr.  R.P.  Bhat,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the appellants,  contended  that  the tribunal having found that the charges levelled against respondent No.  I  were  proved and  that  they  constituted serious misconduct ought not to have interfered with the order of dismissal  passed  by  the School Management.    He  further  submitted  that the three reasons given by the tribunal for taking a lenient view  and interfering  with the order of punishment, namely; (i) delay in forwarding the service book by Pallavi Vidyalaya to Durga Vidyalaya resulting in non-fixation of pay for a  period  of four  years;  (ii)  the act of Durga Vidyalaya in giving the service book to respondent No.  I for getting the  necessary endorsements made therein and not sending it directly to the authorities  concerned  and thereby providing an opportunity to respondent No.  I to commit the act  of  misconduct;  and (iii) young  age of respondent No.  I, cannot be regarded as a good grounds for substituting the order of dismissal  with the  order  of withholding of one increment only with future effect.  He submitted that the tribunal in doing so  clearly exceeded its  jurisdiction.  He also submitted that the High Court without proper application of mind virtually  rejected the  writ  petition  filed by the appellant holding that the reasons given by the tribunal are cogent and do not call for interference. After  a  review of earlier cases this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs.  Union of India and Ors.  (1995)  6  SCO  749 has  held that "The High Court/Tribunal while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty.  If the punishment imposed by  the  disciplinary  authority  or  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

appellate  authority  shocks  the  conscience  of  the  High Court/Tribunal, it would  appropriately  mould  the  relief, either  directing  the  disciplinary/appellate  authority to reconsider  the  penalty’  imposed,  or   to   shorten   die litigation,  it  may  itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof" Neither the tribunal nor the  High  Court  in  this case  has  held  that the punishment imposed upon respondent No.  I was shockingly disproportionate.  Respondent No.    I was a  school  teacher.    A teacher is expected to maintain higher standard of honesty and  integrity  in  view  of  the position he  holds.    He  committed  acts of forgery either himself or with the help of some  other  person  by  forging signatures  of  the  District Education Officer, the auditor and the Sanchalak and Principal of Pallavi Vidyalaya.   Even after  he  was  called  upon  by  the  School  Management to disclose names of the persons who had put  their  signatures in the service book, he had stated that it was signed by the District Education Officer -  Mr.    S.M.    Pannar.    Tnai statement was raise to his Knowledge.  It was on  the  basis of  me forged endorsements that he wanted to get payments as per the revised pay scale regularised.  Respondent  No.    I had  thus not only committed a serious misconduct but also a serious criminal offence.  If under such  circumstances  the punishment  of  dismissal  was  imposed    by    the  School Management,  it  cannot  be  said  that  it  was  shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. The extenuating factors referred to by the  tribunal for  talking  a  lenient  view cannot reasonably lead to the conclusion that the punishment was highly  disproportionate. Respondent No.    I  after his absorption in Durga Vidyalaya was getting his salary- at  Rs.l480/-  in  the  revised  pay scale  and  thus  he was not hurt financially as a result of the delay in forwarding his service book to Durga  Vidyalaya There was  no  compelling  reason  for  respondent No.  I to indulge in the acts of forgery as he could have obtained the necessary endorsements by the  District  Education  Officer, the auditor and others in due course of time.  No regard for truth  and the tendency to commit even a criminal act to get one’s work done are clearly reflected by the  acts  done  by respondent No.   1.  Durga Vidyalaya had not told him to get the service book completed within a  few  days.    If  on  a request made  by  respondent  No.  I, Durga Vidyalaya handed over the  service-book  to  him  for  getting  it  completed instead of sending it directly to the concerned authorities, it cannot  be  said that thereby it committed any fault.  It trusted its teacher.  It could not have anticipated that  he had a  dishonest  intention  at  that time.  Thus the second reason given by the tribunal for interfering with the  order of punishment  was  not justified.  Assuming that respondent No.  I was comparatively young, he had  by  then  put  in  8 years’ sendee as a teacher.  He was mature enough to realize the nature   of  his  acts.    Thus,  there  was  really  no justification  for  the  tribunal  to  interfere  with   the discretion exercised  by  the School Management.  In view of the facts and circumstances, there was no justification  for the tribunal to interfere with the punishment imposed by the School Management.   Learned  counsel  for respondent No.  I relying upon the decision of this Court in  Bhagat  Ram  vs. State of  Himachal  Pradesh  and  Ors.    (1983)  2  SCC 442 submitted that penalty not commensurate with the  be  gravid of  the  misconduct  has  to/considered as violative of Art. 14.  He further submitted that dismissal from service  being an  economic  death,  such  a severe punishment ought not to have been imposed upon respondent No.  I when  by  his  said

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

acts,  he  was not to gain any additional financial benefit. Whether he was likely to gain anything or  not  thereby  did not  have  much  bearing  on the gravity- of the misconduct. The acts committed by him constituted  not  only  a  serious misconduct but  also  a  serious  criminal offence.  Learned counsel also relied upon  the  earlier  quoted  observations made by Hansaria.   J.    in  B.C.  Chaturvedi case (supra). Really, they have no relevance to the facts  of  this  case. this  is  not a case where the High Court/Tribunal found any difficulty in granting an appropriate relief  to  respondent No.   I  because  of some technicality of rules or procedure even though  justice  demanded  it.    Moreover,  the   said observations are no more than an egression of personal view. What is  to  be  noted is Hansaria, J.  agreed with what the other two learned Judges held as regards the powers  of  the High  Court/Tribunal  to interfere with the order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority.  Therefore,  it  would not be  correct to say that this Court in B.C.  Chaturvedi’s case has accepted the view that  the  High  Courts/Tribunals possess  the  same  power which this Court has under Article 142 of the Constitution for doing complete justice, even  in absence of such a provision . We  therefore  allow  this  appeal,  set  aside  the judgment and order passed by the High Court and also that of the tribunal and dismiss the 0.  A.  filed by respondent No. 1.