2009 (1) TMI 782 - HC - Indian Laws

Whether the petitioner cannot be discharged from service since he had his sentence suspended pending appeal and that the conviction had not reached finality? Held that - Taking proceedings for and passing orders of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a government servant who has been convicted by a criminal court is not barred merely because the sentence or order is suspended by the appellate court or on the ground that the said government servant-accused has been released on bail pending the appeal. Surely, the Constitution does not contemplate that a government servant who is convicted for parking his scooter in a no-parking area should be dismissed from service. He may, perhaps, not be entitled to be heard on the question of penalty since clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) makes the provisions of that article inapplicable when a penalty is to be imposed on a government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. But the right to impose a penalty carries with it the duty to act justly. Surely, the Constitution does not contemplate that a government servant who is convicted for parking his scooter in a no-parking area should be dismissed from service. He may, perhaps, not be entitled to be heard on the question of penalty since clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) makes the provisions of that article inapplicable when a penalty is to be imposed on a government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. But the right to impose a penalty carries with it the duty to act justly. Appeal dismissed.

Issues:
Petitioner's services dispensed due to criminal conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioner challenges discharge order invoking Banking Regulation Act and Shastri Award. Petitioner's contentions: discharge without disciplinary action, private dispute not moral turpitude, conviction not final. Petitioner relies on SC judgments for discharge under punishment and moral turpitude interpretations. Interpretation of moral turpitude under Banking Regulation Act. SC precedent on disqualification for conviction under different act. Court's analysis on the nature of petitioner's offences and moral turpitude. Court's consideration of suspension of sentence pending appeal and finality of conviction. SC judgment on government servant's dismissal post-conviction. Dismissal justified based on conduct deserving major punishment. Petitioner advised to await criminal appeal outcome before seeking reinstatement.

Analysis:
The petitioner's services were terminated based on a criminal conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner contested the discharge order citing violations of the Banking Regulation Act and the Shastri Award. The petitioner argued that as a permanent employee, discharge without disciplinary action was impermissible. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that a private dispute with his wife leading to conviction did not constitute moral turpitude. The petitioner also contended that since the conviction was under appeal, it had not attained finality, thus precluding discharge. The petitioner referenced the SC judgment in State Bank of India vs. Workmen to support the argument that discharge under punishment was not valid.

The court delved into the interpretation of "moral turpitude" under the Banking Regulation Act, citing the SC's definition in Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana. The court differentiated the petitioner's offences from those under the Punjab Excise Act, asserting that demanding and accepting dowry constituted moral turpitude. The court referenced the SC's stance on disqualification for convictions under different acts, emphasizing the gravity of the petitioner's crimes. The court concluded that the petitioner's offences were inherently base and vile, falling under moral turpitude as per the Banking Regulation Act.

Regarding the suspension of sentence pending appeal and the finality of conviction, the court referred to SC precedent in The Deputy Director of College Education vs. S. Nagoor Meera. The court highlighted that action post-conviction was not barred by the suspension of sentence or pending appeal. The court underscored the importance of taking action based on the conduct leading to conviction, emphasizing the need for just and fair exercise of dismissal powers. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, advising the petitioner to await the outcome of the criminal appeal before seeking reinstatement.

← Previous Next →