Committee, Bahadurgarh Vs. Krishnan Behari & Ors  INSC 285 (19 February 1996)
Reddy, B.P. (J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) Paripoornan, K.S.(J)
1996 AIR 1249 1996 SCC (2) 714 JT 1996 (3) 96 1996 SCALE (2)698
O R D
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.
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.
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 under s total mis-apprehension of
the relevant factors to be borne in mind in such a case.
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.
Pages: 1 2