2017 (5) TMI 1057 - HC - Indian Laws

Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Held that - The issue with regard to dismissal of an employee solely on the basis of conviction and without holding a regular inquiry is no longer resintegra. In the instant case, a perusal of the impugned order would show that dismissal from service is simplictor on the ground of conviction under Section 138 of the Act being upheld by this Court. Therefore, any adverse order passed without holding a regular inquiry, as envisaged under the Rules, is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of removal from service is set aside. The petitioner would be deemed to be in service with all consequential benefits. The respondents, however, would be at liberty to take a decision with regard to the period of suspension and emoluments admissible to the petitioner, as per rules.

Summary

Issues:
1. Termination of employee based on conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 without holding a regular inquiry.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a regular employee with the Punjab State Electricity Board, was convicted under Section 138 of the Act and subsequently removed from service without a regular inquiry. The petitioner argued that the dispute was of a private nature and did not reflect moral turpitude affecting his work conduct.

2. The respondents contended that as per the Punjab State Electricity Board Employee Punishment and Appeals Rules, a special procedure allowed for dispensing with an inquiry based on a conviction leading to a criminal charge. The Court examined the case records and arguments presented by both parties.

3. The Court observed that the offence of issuing a cheque without sufficient funds, as in this case, did not necessarily involve moral turpitude. Citing precedents, the Court highlighted that such offences were civil in nature and did not warrant dismissal from service. The Court referred to judgments from Kerala and Bombay High Courts supporting this view.

4. Quoting a judgment from the High Court of Haryana, the Court emphasized that termination based solely on conviction without a regular inquiry was excessive and not justified. The Court further analyzed Rule 14 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employee Punishment and Appeals Rules, stating that a proper inquiry was necessary before terminating a regular employee.

5. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Court reiterated the importance of recording reasons for dispensing with an inquiry before imposing a penalty. The Court highlighted that failure to record such reasons would render the order void and unconstitutional. The Court also mentioned previous judgments by the High Court following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

6. Concluding the analysis, the Court held that the dismissal of the petitioner without a regular inquiry was not sustainable. The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the removal order, and directed the petitioner to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. The respondents were given the liberty to decide on the suspension period and emoluments as per rules.