LexSUSHIL KUMAR SINGHAL versus THE REGIONAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 9 S.C.R. 796 SUSHIL KUMAR SINGHAL v. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (Civil Appeal No. 6423 of 2010) AUGUST 10, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Service Law: C Termination of services of Bank employee on being convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude - Appellate court releasing him on probation - Consequently, plea of employee that he be reinstated in service - HELD: Not tenable - Order of a criminal court granting a delinquent the benefit 0 of Probation of Offenders Act, has no bearing on the service conditions of such employee - An employee who stands convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, it is his misconduct that leads to his dismissal - In the instant case, in view of s. 10(1 )(b)(i) of Banking Regulation Act, the delinquent could not be permitted to continue in service - E Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - s.10(1)(b)(i) - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - s. 12. Banking Regulation Act, 1949: F s.10(1)(b)(i) - Discontinuance of service of the employee convicted of moral turpitude - Expression 'moral turpitude' - Connotation of. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: - G s. 12 - Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction H - Applicability of in the context of an employee convicted of moral turpitude and release by appellate court on probation. Words and Phrases: 796 SUSHIL KUMAR SINGHAL v. REGIONAL MANAGER, 797 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Expression "moral turpitude" - Connotation of A The appellant, a bank employee, was convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment u/s 409 IPC. Consequently, he was dismissed from service. The appellant raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial B Disputes, Act, 1947. Meanwhile, in the criminal appeal, the appellate court, while maintaining the conviction, released him on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court upheld his C dismissal from service. The High Court affirmed the award. In the instant appeal filed by the delinquent, it was contended for the appellant that the benefit granted by the appellate court under the Probation of Offenders A'ct, D 1958 had taken away the "disqualification" by virtue of s.12 thereof and, therefore, the respondent -Bank ought to have considered his case for reinstatement. Dismissing the appeal, the Court · HELD: 1.1. Order of a criminal court granting a delinquent employee the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 does not have any bearing so far as E his service is concerned. The word "disqualification" in s.12 of the 1958 Act provides that such a person shall not F stand disqualified for the purposes of other Acts like the Representation of the People Act, 1951 etc. [para 27] [809- G-H; 810-A] . 1.2. The conviction in a criminal case is one part and G release on probation is another. Therefore, grant of benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, only enables the delinquent not to undergo the sentence on showing his good conduct during the period of probation. In case, after being released, the delinquent H 798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A commits another offence, benefit of the 1958 Act, gets terminated and the delinquent can be made liable to undergo the sentence. Therefore, in the case of an employee who stands convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, it is his misconduct that leads to his B dismissal. [para 27] [810-B-C] 1.3. Moral turpitude means anything contrary to honesty, modesty or good morals. It means vileness and depravity. In fact, the conviction of a person in a crime C involving moral turpitude impeaches his credibility as he has been found to have indulged in shameful, wicked, and base activities. In the instant case, undoubtedly, the embezzlement of Rs. 5000/- by the appellant, for which he had been convicted, was an offence involving moral turpitude. Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation D Act, 1949 provides that the Management shall not permit any person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude to continue in employment. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim for re-instatement and other benefits taking note of the fact that he was given an E opportunity by the Management to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service and he submitted his reply, as also taking into consideration the contents o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.