Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent, a clerk in a Municipality, was alleged to have misappropriated Rs 1548.78 by falsifying accounts. He was prosecuted in a criminal case, initially convicted under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and on appeal his conviction was altered to Section 468 IPC (forgery intending that the document be used for the purpose of cheating). Following this conviction and its attendant punishment, the Municipal Committee dismissed him from service.

The respondent appealed to the Director of Local Bodies, who upheld the correctness of taking action but reduced the punishment to stoppage of four increments and directed that the period out of service be treated as extraordinary leave. An appeal by the Municipal Committee to the Commissioner was dismissed as incompetent. A writ petition by the Municipal Committee was dismissed in limine by the High Court. Upon grant of leave, the present appeal was heard and decided.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the respondent’s conviction for a serious offence under Section 468 IPC attracts proviso (a) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, thereby justifying dismissal from service.

Whether the Director of Local Bodies was justified in reducing the penalty from dismissal to stoppage of increments and treating the absence period as extraordinary leave in the circumstances of the case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasized that the respondent had been convicted of a serious crime. It concluded that the case clearly attracts proviso (a) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which allows dismissal from service upon conviction for a criminal offence. In cases of this nature—particularly those involving corruption—the court stated that no punishment other than dismissal is appropriate. It further observed that sympathy in such cases is contrary to public interest and that the quantum of the misappropriated amount is immaterial; what matters is the act of misappropriation itself.

On this basis, the court held that the Director’s interference by reducing the punishment was based on a misapprehension of the relevant factors that must guide the decision in such cases. Consequently, the orders of the Commissioner and the High Court, which left the Director’s modification undisturbed, could not stand.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal was allowed. The judgments of the High Court, the Commissioner, and the Director were set aside, and the Municipal Committee’s order dismissing the respondent from service was restored. No costs were awarded.

Implications: The decision restores the respondent’s dismissal and underscores that, where a municipal employee has been convicted of a serious offence involving misappropriation and falsification of accounts, proviso (a) to Article 311(2) applies and dismissal is the appropriate punishment. The court stressed that leniency is unwarranted in corruption-related cases and that the amount involved is not determinative. The opinion does not discuss broader systemic implications beyond these case-specific directions.

Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari And Others

Order

1. Leave granted.

2. 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 was prosecuted in 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. Section 468 reads:

“Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

3. 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 extraordinary 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.

4. 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 involving corruption — there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any 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 misappropriate that is relevant. The Director had interfered with the punishment under a total misapprehension of the relevant factors to be borne in mind in such a case.

5. Accordingly, 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.

6. No costs.

Civil Appeal No. 4120 of 1996, decided on February 19, 1996

Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari And Others

Comments