Page 1

REPORTABLE

           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

           CIVIL  APPEAL  NO. 4335  of  2007

  LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION   OF INDIA & ORS                              ….APPELLANTS

VERSUS

      TRIVENI SHARAN MISHRA        ….RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T  

PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.  

1. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  

order dated 6th January, 2006 passed by the High Court of  

Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 542 of 2004 whereby  

the writ petition has been allowed, and the  writ petitioner  

is directed to be reinstated  in service.  It is further directed

Page 2

by  the  High  Court  that  the  appellant  may  consider  to  

impose the penalty against the present respondent as was  

awarded  in  the  case  of  Daluram  Patidar,  another  

employee of the appellant-Corporation.

2. Brief  facts  of  the  case  are  that  Senior  Divisional  

Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India, at Shahdol  

in  order  to  recruit  peons (sub-staff)  invited  applications  

from  the  qualified  candidates  through  Employment  

Exchange.  Pursuant to that, respondent - Triveni Sharan  

Mishra submitted his application. As per the qualification  

prescribed by the appellant, a candidate was required to  

have passed Standard IX,  but the candidates who have  

passed  Standard  XII  and  have  secured  50%  or  more  

marks,  Graduates  or  Post-graduates  were  not  to  be  

considered for the post.  The respondent (writ petitioner) in  

his  application  (Annexure  P-3)  for  the  above  post  

mentioned his qualification “Higher Secondary (XIth old)”.  

At the end of the application dated    20 th January, 1996, a  

declaration  was  made  by  the  candidate  (writ  petitioner)  

that he did not possess any other qualification except the  

2

Page 3

one mentioned in the application.  The respondent – writ  

petitioner  appears  to  have  got  selected  for  the  post  of  

Peon. However, after couple of years of his service, it was  

found that he possessed Bachelor’s Degree and he was  

pursuing  M.A.(previous)  in  Economics  at  the  time  he  

applied for the post as above.   On this, the respondent  

was served with  the charge-sheet  by  the appellant  and  

departmental enquiry was initiated.  On conclusion of the  

departmental enquiry, the respondent (writ petitioner) was  

found guilty of misconduct.  Consequently, he was served  

with the show-cause notice as to why he be not removed  

from the service.   On consideration of the reply submitted  

by the respondent, the Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of  

India,  Shahdol  vide  his  order  dated  30th October,  2000  

(Annexure P-11), removed the respondent - writ petitioner  

from the service.  The said order was challenged by the  

respondent  before  the  Departmental  Appellate  Authority  

i.e.  Zonal  Manager,  Life  Insurance Corporation of  India,  

Delhi.  Upon consideration of the appeal submitted by the  

respondent  against  imposition  of  penalty  of  removal  in  

3

Page 4

terms  of  Regulation  39(1)(f)  of  the  LIC  of  India  (Staff)  

Regulations,  1960 (hereinafter  to  be  referred  to  as  ‘the  

Regulations’)  passed by  the  Senior  Divisional  Manager,  

Shahdol, the Appellate Authority concurred with the view  

taken by the said Authority, and dismissed the appeal on  

18th February, 2003.

3.       Aggrieved by  said order, the respondent filed writ  

petition No. 542 of 2004(s) before the High Court.   The  

High  Court  after  taking  action  and  hearing  the  parties  

found that the qualification fixed by the present appellant  

that  the  candidate  should  not  possess  the  higher  

qualification than the IXth Standard, is violative of Article14  

of the Constitution of India.  It further found that similarly  

situated  another  employee  with  the  department  was  

inflicted with the penalty of stoppage of increments for two  

years  with  cumulative  effect,  as  such  the  punishment  

awarded  to  the  writ  petitioner  was  discriminatory.  

Accordingly,  the  writ  petition  was  allowed  by  the  High  

Court.  Aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court,  

4

Page 5

this appeal was preferred by the employer – Life Insurance  

Corporation of India.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and  

perused the papers on record.  

5. The qualification prescribed by the appellant for the  

post  of  peon,  as  mentioned  in  Annexure  P-1  reads  as  

under:

“  b)  Qualifications    A  pass  in  ST.IX.   However  Candidates who passed XII Std. and have secured  50% or more marks, graduates or post graduates will  not be considered.

            Xx    xx     xx      xx         xx.”         

6.  The charge-sheet served on the writ petitioner   is  

reproduced below:

“ CHARGE SHEET

You,  Shri  Triveni  Sharan  Mishra,  SR  no.704768, Sub Staff, Divisional Office Shahdol are  hereby charged as under:

1.       That, in your application dated 20.01.1996 for  the  post  of  Sub-Staff,  submitted  to  Shahdol  Divisional Office of LIC of India, you have mentioned  your educational qualification as Higher Secondary  (11th old), whereas your educational qualification at  that time was of Graduation level, which was more  

5

Page 6

than  the  desired  qualification  for  the  post  of  Sub- Staff.

2.           That you have got appointment for the post   of Sub-Staff by fraudulently making false statement  regarding the educational qualification, whereas you  had taken admission as a regular student in Govt.  Post  Graduation  College  Shahdol  in  B.A.(Final)  in  academic year 1989-90 and your Roll no. was 48717  to appear in the examination. And in year 1990-91  also you had taken admission as a Regular student  in  M.A.(Previous)  Economics  &  to  appear  in  the  examination  your  Roll  No.  was  12696,  which  was  deliberately suppressed by you.

3.     That in the declaration given on 22.03.1996 at  the time of interview also, you have suppressed your  actual  educational  qualification  and  fraudulently  produced  the duplicate Transfer Certificate no.79, of  Government  Raghuraj  Higher  Secondary  School  no.1, Shahdol in support of your having passed XI th  standard. ( The provisional list of the documents on the basis  of which the charges are to be proved is enclosed)

       Your aforesaid act, is in contravention to rules  

of the Corporation and prejudicial to good conduct,  thereby violating the provisions of Regulations 21, 24  and 39(1) of the aforesaid (Staff) Regulations 1960,  for  which  one  or  more  of  the  penalties  specified  under Regulation 39(1) (a) to (g) can be imposed on  you.

However,  before  I  proceed  further   in  the  matter,  I  hereby  give  you  an  opportunity  to  either  admit  or  deny  the aforesaid  charges  in  writing.  In  

6

Page 7

case  you  admit  the  charges,  a  statement  of  admission  and  in  the  event  of  your  denying  the  charges, a statement of denial, together with the list  of  documents  by  which  and  a  list  of  witnesses  through whom you propose to defend your case may  be submitted to the undersigned within a period of  15 days from the date of receipt of this charge sheet.

In case your written statement, as mentioned  above, is not received within the stipulated period or  if it is found to be unsatisfactory, further proceedings  shall ensue without any reference to you.”

7. The  reply  given  by  the  writ  petitioner   to  above  

charge-sheet  to the Department is quoted below:

“To         The Divisioal Manager I/C.         LIC  of India         Divisional Office         Shahdol         M.P.

                                          Through Proper Channel

 Dear Sir,

 RE:  DISCIPLINARY  PROCEEDINGS  UNDER  REGULATION 39 OF THE LIC OF INDIA (STAFF)  REGULATIONS,  1960  AND  CHARGESHEET  DATED 29.02.2000, ISSUED TO ME.

 With  reference  to  above  charge  sheet,  my  submission is as under :

1.   That I was an unemployed person, and I was in  dire  need of  employment.  Therefore,  when I  got  

7

Page 8

information regarding vacancy for the post of Sub- Staff  from  Employment  Exchange  Office,  I  immediately applied for the post of Sub-Staff.

2.  It is true that the desired qualification for the post  of  Sub-Staff  was  XIth pass  along  with  other  documents.

3.  Since I was XIth passed, hence I  had mentioned  my  educational  qualification  as  XIth,  as  the  additional higher qualification was not a constraint  in fulfilling the responsibilities for the applied post, I  had not disclosed it. By doing so I did not intend to  suppress my additional qualification.

4.  After having been appointed on the post of Sub- Staff,  I  have served  the Corporation with utmost  integrity,  honesty  &  capacity.  And  my  higher  qualification  has  been  useful  in  performing  my  duties  towards  the  Corporation.  Thus  I  have  not  violated  the regulations 21 & 24.

5.   If  I  have  unknowingly  violated  any  rules  &  regulations,  I  regret  for  the  same.  I  have  never  intended to violate  the regulations.

 With  my  aforesaid  submission,  I  humbly  request  you  to  take  a  sympathetic  view in  my case  and  absolve me from the above referred charges.

 Yours faithfully,

                                         Triveni Sharan Mishra                                       Sub-staff, Divisional Office,                                        Shahdol .R.No.704768.”

8

Page 9

8. It is not disputed before us that the respondent was  

already graduate on the date he submitted his application  

for the post of Peon, and the declaration made by him in  

Annexure P-3 at the time of seeking employment that he  

possessed  no  other  qualification  was  incorrect.   The  

question before us is  as to whether  the qualification as  

mentioned  above  is  violative  of  Article  14  of  the  

Constitution of India or not,  and as to whether awarding  

punishment  of  removal  to  the  writ  petitioner,  is  

discriminatory in the light of  the one awarded to similarly  

situated  one  Daluram  Patidar   i.e.  only  punishment  of  

stoppage  of  increments  for  two  years  with  cumulative  

effect.   

9. Mr. B.B. Sawhney, learned senior counsel appearing  

on behalf  of the appellants heavily relied in the case of  

Kerala  Solvent  Extractions  Ltd. Vs.  A.  Unnikrishnan  

and Anr. (2006) 13 SCC 619, and it is pointed out that in  

said  case  the  maximum  educational  qualification  for  a  

“badli”  workman was 8th standard, and the respondent of  

said case had made false declaration on which services of  

9

Page 10

said workman were terminated.  This Court in said case  

quashed the award of the Labour Court dated 23rd March,  

1992  setting  aside  the  order  of  termination  dated  3rd  

March,  1989 of  the workman,  and further  set  aside the  

order  passed by the High Court of Kerala upholding the  

award of the Labour Court.

10. We have carefully  gone through the aforesaid case  

law.  In said case issue involved was not whether or not  

maximum qualification can be fixed for a Class-IV/Grade-D  

employee, nor was in said case the employer appears to  

be either State or instrumentality of the State.  What this  

Court  has  held  in  Kerala  Solvent  Extractions  Ltd.  

(Supra) is that the Court should not be led by misplaced  

sympathy.  Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment are  

re-produced below:

“9.  Shri Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel for  the  appellant,  submitted,  in  our  opinion  not  without  justification,  that  the  Labour  Court’s  reasoning  bordered  on  perversity  and  such  unreasoned,  undue  liberalism  and  misplaced  sympathy  would  subvert  all  discipline  in  the  administration.  He stated that the management  will  have  no  answer  to  the  claims  of  similarly  disqualified candidates which might have come to  be rejected.  Those who stated the truth would be  

1

Page 11

said  to  be  at  a  disadvantage  and  those  who  suppressed it stood to gain.  He further submitted  that  this  laxity  of  judicial  reasoning  will  imperceptibly  introduce  slackness  and  unpredictability  in  the  legal  process and,  in  the  final  analysis,  corrode  legitimacy  of  the  judicial  process.

10.   We  are  inclined  to  agree  with  these  submissions.    In  recent  times,  there  is  an  increasing evidence of  this, perhaps well  meant  but  wholly  unsustainable  tendency  towards  a  denudation of the legitimacy of judicial reasoning  and process.  The reliefs granted by the courts  must be seen to be logical and tenable within the  framework of  the law and should not  incur  and  justify  the  criticism  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  tends  to  degenerate  into  misplaced  sympathy, generosity and private benevolence.  It  is  essential  to  maintain  the  integrity  of  legal  reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions.  They  must  emanate  logically  from  the  legal  findings and the judicial results must be seen to  be principled and supportable on those findings.  Expansive  judicial  mood  of  mistaken  and  misplaced  compassion  at  the  expense  of  the  legitimacy of  the process will  eventually  lead to  mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the  judicial  process  of  its  dignity,  authority,  predictability and respectability”.

11. In our opinion, in the present case the High Court has  

rightly relied on the law laid down by this Court in Mohd.  

Riazul Usman Gani and Ors. Vs.  District & Sessions  

Judge, Nagpur and Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 606 wherein it  

1

Page 12

has deprecated the criteria  of  maximum qualification for  

the post of peons. Relevant parts of para 16 and para 18  

of the said judgment are quoted  herein below:

“16.  In  the  present  case  we  find  that  the  candidates with higher  education than Standard  VII were completely shut out for being considered  for the posts of Peons.  The Recruitment Rules  also  provide  for  promotion.   Rule  3(ii)  we  may  quote:

  “(ii) The District Judge may promote-

(a) a Peon, a Watchman, a Gardener,  or a Sweeper to the post of Bailiff:

(b)  a Peon, a Watchman, a Gardener,  a Sweeper or a Bailiff to the post of  a  Regional  (Language)  Section  Writer, an English Section Writer or  a Clerk; and

(c) a Peon, a Watchman, a Gardener,  a  Sweeper,   a  Bailiff,  a  Regional  (Language)  Section  Writer,  and  English Section Writer or a Clerk to  the post of Stenographer”.

Xx  xx  xx   xx    xx

18.      If the appointment of a candidate to the  post of Peon is restricted to his having qualified  up  to  Standard  VII  he  will  have  no  chance  of  promotion  to  the  post  of  Regional  Language  Section Writer or  Clerk……………….”.

1

Page 13

12.   However, on behalf of the appellants it is contended  

that suppression of material information and making false  

statement to secure the employment,  is a serious offence  

to  attract  the  dismissal  of  service.   In  this  connection,  

learned senior counsel for the appellants referred to the  

case  of  Kendriya  Vidyalaya  Sangathan  and  Ors vs.  

Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437.  But in our opinion,  

the  aforesaid  case  referred  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  

cannot be  applied to the present case for the reason that  

in  the said case the employee had concealed the facts  

relating to his character and antecedents.  In said case,  

the employee who was selected for the post of a Teacher  

suppressed the information that a criminal case relating to  

offences punishable under sections 323, 341, 294, 506-B  

read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code was registered  

against him.  As such the facts in the present case cannot  

be equated with the case referred.  13. From the papers  

on record before us,  it  appears that  for  mentioning less  

qualification to secure the job,  similarly situated another  

employee (one Daluram Patidar)  was let off by the Life  

1

Page 14

Insurance Corporation of India by awarding punishment of  

stoppage  of  increments  for  two  years  with  cumulative  

effect.   We are  of  the  opinion  that  the  High  Court  has  

rightly  taken  note  of  said  fact  while  allowing  the  writ  

petition,  and  directing  the  employer  to  consider  the  

imposition of similar penalty after reinstatement of the writ  

petitioner.  

14.    Therefore in view of the above discussion, we do  

not  find  any  sufficient  reason  to  interfere  with  the  

impugned order passed by the High Court.  Accordingly,  

the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

                              ………..………………,,,,,…..……….……J.                           (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

…………………………………………..J (PRAFULLA C. PANT)

New Delhi September 2, 2014.

1