SANCHALAKSHRI Vs. VIJAYA KUMAR MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. 1 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.

(2.) 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 on 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. 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 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 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. 1 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 called upon him to disclose names of the persons who had signed the relevant endorsements. On 24.8.1993 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. 1 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. 1 did amount to a serious misconduct; but as Respondent No. 1 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. 1 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 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.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order passed by the Tribunal the appeal 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. 1 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. 1 for getting the necessary endorsements made therein and not sending it directly to the authorities concerned and thereby providing an opportunity to respondent No. 1 to commit the act of misconduct; and (iii) young age of respondent No. 1, 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.