ALLAHABAD BANK AND ANR. versus DEEPAK KUMAR BHOLA

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 1055 · Decided: 13-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ALLAHABAD BANK AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
DEEPAK KUMAR BHOLA 
MARCH 13, 1997 
[J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
B 
Seivice law-Suspension-Employee alleged to have committed forge1y 
and wrongfully withdrawing money from the Bank-CBI conducted investiga-
tion resulting in filing of charge sheet-Offence involving moral tur-
pitude-Hence suspension of a bank employee, for whose prosecution for such C 
an offence management had accorded sanction, held valid-Mere fact of JO 
years having elapsed was no ground for allowing him to come back to a 
sensitive post unless he is exonerated-Allahabad Bank First Bipartite Settle-
ment, 1966, Cls 19.3 and 19.2 
The respondent was working as clerk-cum-typist in a Bank. CBI had D 
conducted investigation and submitted its report, whereupon the Superin-
tendent of Police called upon the appellant Bank to accord sanction for 
prosecution of the respondent and one other person A, inter alia for 
criminal misconduct and cheating. Appellant. Bank accordingly, accorded 
sanction for the prosecution and also passed an order suspension of the E 
respondent on 23-9-1987 as per .clause 19.3(a) of the First Bipartite Settle· 
ment 1966 between the management and the Union. Pursuant to the 
sanction CBI filed the charge sheet against the respondent in the trial 
court. 
The responden~, thereupon, filed a writ petition challenging the F 
order of suspension. The High Court by its impugned judgment quashed 
the order of suspension on the ground that the mere fact that a person 
had entered into criminal conspiracy, it could not be regarded that an 
offence involving "moral turpitude" had been committed and therefore, the 
appellant had no jurisdiction to pass the order of suspension. Hence, this G 
appeal by way of special leave. 
Appellant Bank contended that the respondent had committed an 
offence involving moral turpitude, and therefore, the appellant had juris-
diction to suspend the respondent. The respondent on the other hand 
contended that in view of the fact and circumstances, when nearly 10 years H 
1055 
1056 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A have elapsed this Court should not interfere. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. An offence involving "moral turpitude" must depend upon 
the facts of each case. However, one of the most serious offences involving 
B "mor.tl turpitude" would be where a person employed in a banking com-
pany dealing with money of the General public, commits forgery and 
wrongfully withdraws money which h~ is not entitled to withdraw. (1060-G] 
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, [1996] 4 SCC 17 = [1996) SCC 
C (Cri) 583 and Baleshwar Singh v. Distt. Magistrate and Collector, AIR (1959) 
All 71, relied upon. 
2. lf.th~ alfugations made against the respondent are proved, it will 
clearly show that he had committed an offence of moral turpitude and, 
therefore, the appellant had jurisdiction to suspend him under clause 19.3 
..... 
...-
D of the First Bipartite Settlement, 1966. The very fact that the investigation , 
was conducted by CBI which resulted in filing of charge sheet was suffi-
cient for the appellant to conclude that pending prosecution the respon-
dent should be suspended. Allowing such an employee to remain in the 
seat would result in giving him further opportunity to indulge in the act 
E for which he was being prosecuted. It was the bounden duty of the appel-
lant to have taken recourse to the provision of Clause 19. 3 of the First 
Bipartite Settlement, 1966. The mere fact that nearly 10 years have elapsed 
since the charge-sheet was filed, can also be no ground for allowing the 
respondent to come back to duty on a sensitive post in the Bank, unless 
he is exonerated of the charge. (1061-F, 1062-C-E] 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9216 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.91 of the Allahabad High 
G Court in W.P. No. 6118 of 1988. 
S.K. Mehta and Dhruv Mehta for the Appellants. 
R.K. Jain and S.R. Setia for the Respondent. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
y 
ALLAHABAD BANKv. D.K. BHOLA[KIRPAL,J.) 
1057 
KIRPAL, J. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Allahabad A 
High Court which had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent 
and quashed an order of suspension which had been passed pending 
prosecution launched against him. Briefly stated the facts are that during 
the year 1984-85, the respondent was working as Clerk-cum-typist in Al-
lahabad Bank with one of its branch at Luckno

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.