SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Bom) 443

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Amit Borkar, J.
Reeta Mukesh Sehgal - Petitioner
Versus
Union Bharat Sabha Through the Secretary - Respondent
Writ Petition No.1337 of 2007
Decided On : 24-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mihir Desaid, Sr. Advoate i/b Mr. N. R. Bubna
For the Respondent: Mr. C. R. Sadasivan a/w Ameeral Hasan, Ms. Itisha Ranka i/b M. P. Vashi & Associates

Altering service book entries with correction fluid to misrepresent service continuity for higher pay constitutes misconduct involving moral turpitude in educational institutions, warranting proportionate termination if proved on evidence and procedure fair.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 - Section 439D - Definitions of misconduct (breach of service conditions, code of conduct), moral turpitude (behaviour derogatory to teacher dignity), willful persistent negligence (dereliction of duties) - Constitution Articles 226, 227 - Disciplinary proceedings against Principal - Altering service book with correction fluid to show continuous service as Principal and secure higher pay scale constitutes misconduct involving moral turpitude - Proved by witness testimony, documents, surrounding circumstances showing motive of monetary gain - Serious conduct warranting termination. (Paras 24-38, 51-59)

(B) Disciplinary enquiry - Procedure fair if charge sheet served, opportunity to reply and cross-examine given, relevant documents supplied - Refusal of irrelevant documents not fatal - No bias if impartial conduct shown - Findings based on credible evidence not to be re-appreciated in judicial review. (Paras 27, 47-50, 20)

(C) Punishment proportionality - In moral turpitude cases affecting institutional trust, major penalty like termination appropriate - Tribunal may modify dismissal to termination considering service length, no criminality - Not shocking to conscience if matches gravity. (Paras 60-67)

(D) Moral turpitude tests - Act shocks moral conscience, base dishonest motive, shows depraved character - Applied to record manipulation by head of institution abusing position for personal advantage. (Paras 53-59)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, appointed as Principal, faced departmental enquiry for charges including misrepresentation of service continuity to authorities, false entries in service book using whitener, obstructing administrative reforms, misusing position by forwarding confidential letters to non-office bearers, refusing college premises for external examinations. Enquiry held guilty of several charges; management dismissed. Tribunal partly allowed appeal, substituted with termination. Writ petition challenging Tribunal order.

Findings of Court:
Charges proved on reliable evidence; procedure fair; misconduct involves moral turpitude justifying termination; no interference warranted.

Issues: Whether charges proved warranting moral turpitude finding; enquiry procedure fair; punishment proportionate; scope of judicial review.

Ratio Decidendi: Altering official records as custodian for personal financial benefit demonstrates dishonesty and abuse of position, constituting moral turpitude in teaching context; sufficient evidence including clerk testimony, pay documents supports findings; termination proportionate for integrity breach without lifelong stigma of dismissal.

Result: Writ petition dismissed. Tribunal order upheld.

Table of Content
1. principal's service amid management conflicts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. enquiry process and tribunal termination order. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. parties' contentions on charges and penalty. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. standards for misconduct proof and fairness. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. service record alterations for gain prove misconduct. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
6. admin obstruction and office misuse upheld. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
7. enquiry procedure fair without bias. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
8. moral turpitude involves base dishonest acts. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
9. termination proportional for principal's integrity breach. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)
10. writ dismissed; tribunal order upheld. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73)

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. The Petitioner has instituted the present writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 28 September 2006 passed by the College Tribunal in Appeal No. 9 of 2006. By the said order, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and held the Petitioner liable for termination of service.

2. The Petitioner states that she possesses M.A. and M.Phil. qualification. She commenced her teaching career as a Lecturer at V.M.V. and J.M.T. College, Nagpur during the academic year 1982 to 1983. Thereafter, she served as a full time Lecturer at S.D. College for Women, Jalandhar during 1983 to 1984 and subsequently at H.M.V. College, Jalandhar from 8 October 1984 to 30 June 1989. The said institution was managed by the D.A.V. Management Committee. The Petitioner was appointed as a full time Lecturer on probation in Respondent No. 2 College with effect from 1 July 1989 and was confirmed upon successful completion of probation. She was thereafter appointed as In Charge Principal with effect from 1 June 1994 and subsequently as Principal on probation for one year with effect from 25 June 1995. Her appointment was approved by Respondents No. 3 and 4.

3. During her tenure as Principal, the Petitioner noticed that Shri Mahesh Kapur, son of the then Secretary of Respondent No. 1 Trust, was conducting coaching classes wherein lecturers of Respondent No. 2 College were compelled to teach and students were required to enroll and pay donations. Complaints regarding these activities were published in newspapers and were also submitted to the Joint Director of Education. A writ petition was also filed before the High Court by the Forum for Fairness in Education challenging such activities. The Petitioner reported these matters to Shri Rajpal Kapur, the then Secretary of Respondent No. 1 Trust, and other authorities. She was informed that Shri Rajpal Kapur supported the activities of his son. A fact finding team from the University of Mumbai visited the College, during which Shri Rajpal Kapur directed the Petitioner to tutor students to deny the allegations, failing which she would face termination. He also directed termination of teaching and non teaching staff despite positive reports submitted by the Petitioner and retained his daughter in law notwithstanding an unsatisfactory service record.

4. It is further alleged that Shri Rajpal Kapur used the premises and funds of Respondent No. 2 College for private coaching classes. The Petitioner’s refusal to support such conduct was treated as insubordination. The management extended her probation in the year 1996, declined confirmation beyond 31 May 1997 and sought to revert her to the post of Lecturer. The Petitioner challenged the said action before the Tribunal and the appeal was allowed. However, during the pendency, she was suspended as Principal by letter dated 9 June 1997 and was paid suspension allowance in the Principal’s scale.

5. In the elections of Respondent No. 1 Trust held in 1998, Shri H.R. Duggal became Secretary. By letter dated 5 February 1999, the Petitioner’s suspension was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top