SANCHALAKSHRI AND ANR. versus VIJAYAKUMAR RAGHUVIRPRASAD MEHTA AND ANR .

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 13 · Decided: 18-11-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

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 
of pay-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 
D 
substitute. 
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 
E 
the Auditor. For getting the said deficiencies removed the service book was 
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 
G 
> 
respondent No. I provided an opportunity to the latter to commit the act of 
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. 
H 
13 
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) 
F 
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) 
3. If on a request made by respondent No. 1, Durga Vidyalaya handed 
over the sen1ice 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 t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.