CHHEDI LAL GUPTA Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, SBI BILASPUR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
CHHEDI LAL GUPTA
Branch Manager, Sbi Bilaspur
Click here to view full judgement.
SUNIL KUMAR SINHA,J. -
(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order of dismissal (Annexure P-7) passed on 18-2-1999 by the disciplinary authority, respondent
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Deputy Head Cashier in the State Bank of India. He was tried for a Criminal Case under
sections 3(l)(ii) and 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") vide
Special Case No. 71/1996. The special Court convicted the petitioner under
section 3 (1 )(ii) of the Aforesaid Act on 14-10-1998. However he was acquitted
of the charges framed u/s 3(1)(v). The petitioner was sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 3 months. This judgment of conviction
and sentence awarded to the petitioner was challenged before the High Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 2449/1998 in which the sentence awarded to the petitioner
was suspended vide order dated 30-10-1998. The appeal is still pending for its
disposal. In the meanwhile, the Bank issued a memo to the petitioner calling
explanation regarding the aforesaid conviction. The petitioner submitted his reply
on 21-1-1999 to the aforesaid memo issued to him. Thereafter the disciplinary
authority without conducting any enquiry and without recording any finding
regarding the nature and character of involvement passed the impugned order
dated 18-2-1999 dismissing the petitioner from service. It is against this order,
the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been shown to have been passed in terms of section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking
Regulation Act 1949 (For short 'Act of 1949) read with para 521 (2)(b) of Shastri
Award read with Desai Award with effect from 14-10-1998 i.e., the date of
conviction, but none of these provisions give an authority to respondent No. 2 to
pass such an order of dismissal on the basis of the conviction without recording a
finding about the conviction of the petitioner for an offence involving moral turpitude.
He further submits that what is meant by an offence involving moral turpitude,
referred to in both of these provisions mentioned in the impugned order, was
required to be taken note of by the disciplinary authority. There is no finding that
the petitioner was guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude. In fact the offence
under section 3(1)(ii) of the Act may not be covered under an offence involving
moral turpitude, therefore, this order of punishment is bad in law.
(3.) ON the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submits that after the conviction of the petitioner, he was served with a notice and after
considering the reply, the petitioner has rightly been dismissed from service as
such the act of the petitioner falls within the ambit of an offence involving moral
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.