2010 (8) TMI 1098 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the benefit granted to the appellant under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 entitles him to reinstatement in service.
2. Whether the conviction of an employee in an offence involving moral turpitude permits the disciplinary authority to dismiss the employee from service.

Summary:

Issue 1: Benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Reinstatement in Service
The appellant argued that once granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Act 1958), the respondent-Bank should have considered his reinstatement, as the benefit under Section 12 of the Act 1958 removes "disqualification." The Supreme Court, however, held that the benefit under the Act 1958 only removes the punishment (sentence) and not the fact of conviction. The Court cited several precedents, including *Harichand v. Director of School Education* (1998) and *Union of India v. Bakshi Ram* (1990), to clarify that Section 12 of the Act 1958 applies to disqualifications under other statutes and does not prevent disciplinary actions based on the conviction itself. The Court emphasized that the conviction remains valid for the purposes of employment decisions, and the benefit of probation does not entitle the appellant to reinstatement.

Issue 2: Conviction for an Offence Involving Moral Turpitude and Dismissal from Service
The respondent-Bank argued that the appellant's conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude justified his dismissal from service. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the conviction for embezzlement of Rs. 5000/- under Section 409 IPC constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude. The Court referred to the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Act 1949), specifically Section 10(1)(b)(i), which mandates that a banking company shall not employ or continue the employment of any person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. The Court explained that moral turpitude implies conduct contrary to justice, honesty, or morality, and the appellant's actions met this criterion. The Court also noted that the Tribunal and the High Court had correctly upheld the dismissal, considering the statutory provisions and the facts of the case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant's conviction justified his dismissal from service, and the benefit of probation under the Act 1958 did not entitle him to reinstatement. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court.