As per case facts, the Petitioner challenged a College Tribunal order that partly upheld her termination from the Principal position. Her termination followed a departmental enquiry initiated after renewed conflict ... with the management, where she was accused of misrepresentation about continuity of service, making false entries in her service book, obstructing administration, and misusing her official position. These allegations arose after she reported management's alleged misconduct. Initially dismissed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty to termination, leading to the current writ petition. The question arose whether the proved charges, specifically the deliberate alteration of service records to gain monetary advantage and persistent administrative obstruction, constituted misconduct involving moral turpitude that warranted termination. Finally, the High Court determined that such actions, demonstrating a lack of honesty and integrity incompatible with a leadership role in an educational institution, were indeed serious misconduct. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that termination was a proportionate penalty, removing her from the sensitive post without the lifelong stigma of dismissal, and found it neither arbitrary nor shockingly disproportionate, thus dismissing the writ petition.