SHRI GATRU MAL Vs. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision of this case is dependant on the meaning of the expression 'moral turpitude'. Can a particular offence be said to involve moral turpitude in all circumstances irrespective of the background in which the offence is committed And can a conviction of a person under Sec. 324 or under Sec. 326 of the Indian Penal Code necessarily leads to the conclusion that the person has committed an offence involving moral turpitude Further, whether the expression 'gross moral turpitude' has to be interpreted differently from 'moral turpitude' These are the questions involved in the case.

(2.) The Petitioner was in the service of the Reserve Bank of India and was suspended after a criminal case was instituted against aim. He was later put on trial and convicted by the trial Court on the 26th September, 1972 under Ss. 148, 323 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. A notice was thereafter served on him in February, 1973 asking him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from Bank service under the provisions of Regulation 46(3) of the Reserve Bank of India Staff Regulation, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation'). The Petitioner in his show cause pleaded the pendency of the appeal but the Manager, Reserve Bank, dismissed him by the order as contained in Annexure 3 dated 26.2.73. The Petitioner was accordingly informed by the letter Annexure 4 which staled that if his conviction was set aside in appeal, he could approach the authority later in this matter. The criminal appeal was ultimately dismissed with certain alteration in the conviction by the High Court in July, 1974 and the Petitioner moved the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court converted the Petitioner's conviction under Sec. 326 of the Indian Penal Code into one under Sec. 324 and reduced the sentence to one of fine. The Judgment was delivered on 25.4.1979. The Petitioner thereafter filed a representation, a copy whereof is Annexure 5 to the application, before the competent authority of the Bank for his reinstatement. The same was dismissed by the order in Annexure 6. By the present Writ Application, the Petitioner has challenged the orders in Annexures 3 and 6.

(3.) The Reserve Bank of Indian Staff Regulation, 1948 deals with the terms and conditions of service of the Staff of the Bank, and Regulation 46(1) lays down that an employee who is arrested for debt or on a criminal charge or is detained in pursuance of any process of law may be directed by competent authority to be considered under suspension. Thereafter, Regulation 46(3) reads as follows: