MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BAHADURGARH v. KRISHNAN BEHAR! AND ORS. FEBRUARY 19, 1996 [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] Se1vice Law : Employee of Municipal Corporation dismissed from service f of misap- propriation of cash and falsifying account~The employee was also prosecuted and convicted-In departmental appeal Director of Local Bodies reduced the punishment to stoppage off our increment~Also directed that c
the pe1iod during which the employee was out of service be treated as extra-ordinary leave-Appeals to Commissioner and High Court dis- missed-On appeal held, in cases involving com.tption there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal–Any sympathy shown in such a case is D totally unwmmnted and opposed to public interest.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4120 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.4.94 of the Punjab & E Haryana High Court in C.W.A. No. 4769 of 1994. AP. Medh for the Appellants.
Respondent-in-person and Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. The respondent was a clerk in the Municipality. He was alleged to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1548.78p by falsifying the accounts. He G was prosecuted in a criminal case and convicted under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code 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 the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating shall be punished with H imprisonment of either description 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 B 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 appel 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 C 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 invoMng corruption – there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any D sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant. The Director had interferred with the punishment under a 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 Cotnmittee dismissing the respondent is restored. No costs.
G.N. Appeal allowed.