Holding

The dismissal of the teacher for forgery was appropriate and the Tribunal and High Court exceeded their jurisdiction by substituting a lesser penalty.

Summary

The respondent, a teacher, forged the signatures of the District Education Officer and Auditor in his service book to obtain salary fixation after his previous school closed. The school management dismissed him after an inquiry proved the forgery. The Gujarat Secondary Educational Tribunal set aside the dismissal, substituting it with stoppage of one increment, citing delays in forwarding the service book, the school's trust in the teacher, his young age, and lack of financial gain as mitigating factors. The Gujarat High Court modified this to stoppage of two increments, deeming the tribunal's penalty too lenient. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the teacher’s conduct constituted serious misconduct and a criminal offence, and that the dismissal was not disproportionate; consequently, the tribunal and high court had exceeded their jurisdiction in substituting the penalty. The Supreme Court set aside both the tribunal and high court orders and restored the dismissal.

Issues considered

Whether the Tribunal and High Court were justified in substituting the dismissal with a lesser penalty of stoppage of increments.
Whether the extenuating factors cited by the Tribunal warranted a reduction of the punishment.
Whether the dismissal of a teacher for forgery was disproportionate and violative of Article 14.
What is the scope of power of appellate authorities to interfere with disciplinary penalties.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

service lawteacher disciplineforgerydismissalproportionalitytribunal jurisdictionsubstitution of penaltyArticle 14disciplinary proceedings

Judgment

SANCHALAKSHRI AND ANR. A
v.
VIJA YAKUMAR RAGHUVIRPRASAD MEHTA AND ANR .
•
NOVEMBER 18, 1998

[S.P. BHARUCHA, G.T. NANA YA TI AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] B

Service Law :

Teacher-Closure of school-Absorption in another school-Fixation
ofpay-Service book given to teacher for necessary endorsement of competent c
authority-Forgery committed by teacher-Dismissal order-Held valid-No
financial gain by teacher held not relevant-Substitution of punishment with
stoppage of two increments-Held substitution not justified

Service law-Punishment-Power of High Court and Tribunal to
substitute. D
Respondent No. I was working as a teacher in Pallavi Vidyalaya.
Consequent to the closure of said school he was absorbed in Durga Vidyalaya
run by appellant No.I. In his service book the endorsement regarding fixation
of salary of respondent was neither signed by District Education Officer nor
the Auditor. For getting the said deficiencies removed the service book was E
given to respondent No. I. Instead of getting the endorsement of competent

. _, authorities the Respondent forged the signatures of competent authorities
and returned the service book to the school authorities. Consequently the
services of the Respondent were terminated after conducting an enquiry. The
Gujarat Secondary Educational Tribunal set aside the order of termination F
and held that stoppage of one increment with future effect would be the
proper punishment. In taking a lenient view the Tribunal relied on three
extenuating factors (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 school in giving the service book personally to
> respondent No. I provided an opportunity to the latter to commit the act of G
misconduct; (iii) the young age of the delinquent employee and (iv) that by
his act the respondent has not gained any additional financial gain. The High
Court also held that the penalty imposed was disproportionate but substituted
the order of stoppage of one increment by directing stoppage of two increments
with future effect.
13
H
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant
school man11gement that (i) the Tribunal having found that the charges
against the respondent were proved it should not have interfered with the
order of dismissal; (ii) the extenuating factors taken into account by Tribunal
cannot be regarded as good grounds for substituting dismissal order with
B stoppage of i1ncrement; and (iii) the High Court virtually rejected the writ
petition filed by the appellant without proper application of mind.

Allowi1~g the appeal this Court

HELD: 1. In the circumstances of the case there was no justification
for the Tribunal to interfere with punishment imposed by the school
C management. A teacher is expected to maintain higher standard of honesty
and integrity in view of the position he holds. Respondent committed acts of
forgery. Even after he was called upon by the school management to disclose
names of th1: persons who had put their signatures in the service book, he
had seated that it was signed by the District Education Officer. That statement
D was false to Ms knowledge. Thus not only he committed a serious misconduct
but also a serious criminal offence. 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. If under such circumstances the
punishment ,Df dismissal was imposed by the school management, it cannot
E be said that it was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.
[16-G; 17-E-G)

2. The extenuating factors referred to by the Tribunal for taking a
lenient view cannot reasonably lead to the conclusion that the punishment
was highly disproportionate. [17-H)

F 3. If on a request made by respondent No. 1, Durga Vidyalaya handed
over the sen 1ice 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 faulL It trusted its teacher. It could not have anticipated that
he had a dishonest intention at that time. Though Respondent No.I was
G comparatively young, yet he was mature enough to realise the nature of his
acts. Whethc~r he was likely to gain anything or not thereby did not have
much beari111g on the gravity of the misconduct. Accordingly, the order
passed by the High Court and that of the Tribunal are set aside.
(18-C-D; F; 19-B)

H B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union ofIndia & Ors., [1995) 6 SCC 749, explained
SANCHALAKSHRI v. V.R. MEHTA [NANA VAT!, J.] 15
and held inapplicable. A
Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., (1983[ 2 SCC 442,
referred to.
r
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7789of1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.97 of the Gujarat High Court B
in S.C.A. No. 6671 of 1997.

R.P. Bhat and M.N. Shroff for the Appellants.

M.R. Anand, Aseem Malhotra and A.P. Medh for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
NANAVATI, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed
by the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.6671of1997. The
High Court upheld the order of the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal
whereby the order of dismissal of respondent No. 1 passed by the appellant D
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. 1 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 E
teacher in Durga Vidyalaya run by appellant No. 1. While joining this new
School, respondent No. 1 did not produce his service book nor was it forwarded
by Pallavi Vidyalaya to Durga Vidyalaya. 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 F
Government. He did not produce it but Pallavi Vidyalaya forwarded it to Durga
Vidyalaya on 23.11.1992. On examination Durga Vidyalaya noticed that there
were certain deficiencies and irregularities in it. 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 G
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 gjven to him.
Within three days (Saturday and Sunday intervening) respondent No. I returne\I
the service book and informed the School Management that all the deticiencie~ H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A have been removed. As it was returned within such a short time, Durga
Vidyalay~1 felt some doubt regarding genuineness of the signatures of the
concerned authorities. So it called upon him to disclose names of the persons
who had signed the relevant endorsements. On 24.8.93 he informed Durga
Vidyalayn that the District Education Officer Shri S.N. Parmar had signed the
endorsement. Durga Vidyalaya then wrote to Shri Parmar to confirm his
B signature. He denied that he had signed the service book. It was found to
be a forg(:d signature. purga 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.
c
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
D 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 service amounting to his economic death was not called for. It was of
the vi~w that a lenient view should be taken and, therefore, held that stoppage
of one increment with future effect would be the proper punishment.
E 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 p1:tition to the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court agreed with the
F 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.

G 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
H in forwarding the service book by Pallavi Vidyalaya to Durga Vidyalaya
SANCHALAKSHRlv. V.R.MEHTA[NANAVATl,J.] 17
resulting in non-fixation of pay for a period of four years; (ii) the act of Durga A
Vidyalaya in giving the service book to respondent No. I for getting the
necessary endorsements made therein and not sending it directly to the
l 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 good grounds for substituting the order of dismissal B
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.
c
After a review of earlier cases, this Court in B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union
of India and Ors., [ 1995) 6 SCC 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 appellate authority shocks t~e
conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the D
relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the
penalty imposed, or to shorten the 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 E
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 ano Principal of Pallavi Vidyalaya. Even after he
was called upon by the School Management to disclose names of the persons F
who had put their signatures in the service book, he had stated that it was
signed by the District Education Officer - Mr. S.N. Parmar. That statement was
false to his knowledge. It was on the basis of the 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 G
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 taking a lenient
view cannot reasonably lead to the conclusion that the punishment was H
18 SUPREME·COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

· A· highly disproportionate. Respondent No. 1 after his absorption in Durga
Vidyalaya was getting his saiary at Rs. 1480 in the revised pay scale and thus
he was not hurt financially as a result of the delay in forwarding his service
book to :Glurga Vidyalaya. There was no compelling reason for respondent No.
I to indulge in the acts of forgery as he could have obtained the necessary
B 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 g<:t one's work done are clearly reflected by the acts done by respondent
No. I. 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
C 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. 1 was comparatively young, he had by then
put in 8 years' service as a teacher. He was mature enough to realize the
D 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.

E Learned counsel for respondent No. I relying upon the decision of this
Court in Bhagat Ram v. State of Himacha/ Pradesh and Ors., [1983] 2 SCC
442 submitted that penalty not commensurate with the gravity of the
misconduct has to be 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. 1 when by his said
F 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.
G 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 g,ranting 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 expression of personal view. What
is to be noted is Hansaria, J. agreed with what the other two learned Judges
H held as regards the powers of the High Court/Tribunal to interfere with the
SANCHALAKSHRI v. V.R. MEHTA[NANAVATI, J.] 19
order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, it would not A
be correct to say that this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi's case has accepted the
view that the High Courts/Tribunals possesses 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 B
passed by the High Court and also that of the Tribunal and dismiss the O.A.
filed by respondent No. l.

T.NA A'!Jpeal allowed.