THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS versus P. SOUPRAMANIANE

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 1064 · Decided: 26-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1064
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS
v.
        P. SOUPRAMANIANE
(Civil Appeal No. 7011 of 2009)
              APRIL 26, 2019
    [L. NAGESWARA RAO AND M. R.SHAH, JJ.]
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 – s.10(1)(b)(i) – Respondent,
working as Messenger in the State Bank of India stabbed one ‘K’
and one ‘S’ with a broken soda bottle – Trial court convicted the
Respondent u/s.324, IPC – Conviction affirmed by the Appellate
Court – Respondent discharged from service – Respondent filed
Writ Petition in the High Court – Dismissed – Writ Appeal – Allowed
by the Division Bench – Held: s.10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation
Act, 1949 provides that conviction by criminal court of an offence
involving moral turpitude shall disentitle a person from continuing
in employment of a banking company – Though every offence is a
crime against the society, discontinuance from service according to
the Banking Regulation Act can be only for committing an offence
involving moral turpitude – Acts which disclose depravity and
wickedness of character can be categorized as offences involving
moral turpitude – Whether an offence involves moral turpitude or
not depends upon the facts and the circumstances of the case –
Present case concerns an assault – There was no motive for the
Respondent to cause the death of the victims – Criminal courts below
found that the injuries caused to the victims were simple in nature –
Crime committed by the Respondent does not involve moral turpitude
– Respondent not guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude –
Not liable to be discharged from service – Judgment of the High
Court, affirmed – Service Law – Penal Code, 1860 – s.324.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation
Act, 1949 provides that conviction by a criminal court of an offence
involving moral turpitude shall disentitle a person from continuing
in employment of a banking company.  The reasons given by the
High Court for setting aside the order of discharge and directing
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 1064
1064
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1065
the reinstatement of the Respondent in service are not agreed
with.  A show-cause notice was issued to the Respondent in which
it was categorically mentioned that the Respondent cannot
continue in service after his conviction in a criminal case involving
moral turpitude in view of Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949.  After considering the explanation of the
Respondent, an order of discharge was passed.  The High Court
is not right in holding that no reasons had been given by the
bank for discontinuing the Respondent from service.  The High
Court committed an error in holding that the order of discharge
should be set aside on the ground that the provision of law under
which the Respondent was discharged was not mentioned in the
order.  Yet another reason given by the High Court for
interference with the order of discharge is that the criminal court
released the Respondent on probation only to permit him to
continue in service. The release under probation does not entitle
an employee to claim a right to continue in service.  In fact the
employer is under an obligation to discontinue the services of an
employee convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.  The
observations made by a criminal court are not binding on the
employer who has the liberty of dealing with his employees
suitably. [Paras 4, 5][1069-A; D-G]
1.2 Conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude
disqualifies a person from continuing in service in a bank. Though
every offence is a crime against the society, discontinuance from
service according to the Banking Regulation Act can be only for
committing an offence involving moral turpitude. Acts which
disclose depravity and wickedness of character can be categorized
as offences involving moral turpitude.  Whether an offence
involves moral turpitude or not depends upon the facts and the
circumstances of the case. Ordinarily, the tests that can be applied
for judging an offence involving moral turpitude are: a) Whether
the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the moral
conscience or society in general; b) Whether the motive which
led to the act was a base one, and c) Whether on account of the
act having been committed the perpetrators could be considered
to be of a depraved character or a person who was to be looked
down upon by the society.  The other important factors that are
STATE

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