J. JAISHANKAR versus THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 703 · Decided: 14-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

J. JAISHANKAR 
A 
v. 
THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANR. 
AUGUST 14, 1996 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1940 : Section JO. 
Employee-Conviction under Section 509 !PC-Imposition of fine of 
Rs. 200---Conviction and sentence attaining finality-Reference under section C 
JO of Industiial Disputes Act sought by employee-Single Judge of High Court 
directing Central Govemment to make reference for adjudication whether 
employee's dismissal was valid-Division Bench modifying the order of di;-
missal to one of discharge with payment of gratuity-Appeal-Held conviction 
under section 509 !PC involves moral tuTpitude--When a Govemmem servam D 
is dismissed from se1vice on conviction by a ciiminal Court involving moral 
turpitude, it automatically leads to removal from service, without further 
enquiry-A worker cannot be put at a higher pedestal than as the Government 
servant-In view of conviction of the petitioner for offence involving moral 
turpitude the order of dismissal was rightly passed-Single Judge en·ed in 
directing a Reference to the Industrial Tiibunaf-171e order of Division Bench E 
passed on the basis of the concession made by the teamed counsel for the 
respondents modifying the order of dismissal to one of discharge from service 
without consequential retiral benefits but with payment of gratuity was in 
accordance with law. 
Pawan Kumar v. State of Ha1yana, (1996) 4 SCALE 480, held inap-
plicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 15036 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.3.96 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in W.A. No. 111 of 1996. 
L. Nageswara Rao, R.S. Krishnan and P.P. Singh for the Petitioner. 
The foilowing Order of the Court was delivered : 
703 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
704 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
This special leave petition arises from the judgment and order of 
Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court made on March 4, 1996 
in W.A. No. 111/96. The admitted position is that petitioner was convicted 
for an offence under Section 509, !PC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 
200. The conviction and sentence had become final. Subsequently, the 
petitioner sought for a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Dis-
putes Act, 1947 (for short, the "Act") for adjudication of his dismissal from 
service. The Central Government had refused to refer the dispute. Conse-
quently, he filed the writ petition in the High Court. The learned single 
Judge by judgment dated September 19, 1995 allowed the writ petition and 
directed the Central Government to make a reference to the Industrial 
C 
Tribunal for adjudication whether his dismissal from service was in accord-
ance with law. On appeal, the Division Bench modified the order of the 
learned single Judge and on the basis of the concession made by the 
counsel appearing for the respondent, the order of dismissal from service 
was converted into discharge from service without retiral benefits. How-
ever, the Division Bench directed the respondent to pay him the gratuity 
D which is payable in accordance with the rules. Calling that order in ques-
tion, this SLP has been filed. 
E 
Shri L. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, has 
contended that under Rule lO(l)(b)(i) of the Act, no employee of a 
banking company who is or at any time has been convicted by a criminal 
court of an offence involving moral turpitude, shall be appointed. He 
placed reliance on paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment of this Court in 
Pawan Kumar v. State of Hmyana, (1996) 4 SCALE 480 at 484 and 
contended that when an offence leading to conviction and sentence of a 
fine upto Rs. 2000 was involved, the necessary recommendation came to 
F 
be made to the Parliament to step in and amend the law so as to remove 
the embargo for appointment in future period. Therefore, in the light of 
the above judgment and the law laid down by this Court, the view taken by 
the High Court is not correct in law. We find no force in the contention. 
In view of the admitted position that the conviction of the petitioner 
,, 
G for an offence under Section 509, !PC had attained finality, it undoubtedly 
involves moral turpitude as it is impermissible for such an employee to 
continue in service. When a Government servant is dismissed from service 
on conviction by a criminal Court involving moral turpitude, it automat-
ically leads to removal from service, without further enquiry. Can a worker 
H 

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