IMPORTANT POINT
Offence, involving a person employed in Bank dealing with money of general public, of Commission of forgery & wrongful withdrawal of money would be one involving moral turpitude".

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Suspension order of respondent, a clerk-cum-typist, on being charge-sheeted for offences u/s 120 (B)/419/420/467/468/471 1PC & 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act-Offence involves moral turpitude"- Appellant had the jurisdiction to suspend him under clause 19.3 of the First Bipartite Settlement 1966-Decision taken by the appellant on basis of charge-sheet could not be said non-application of mind no objective consideration of facts-Mere fact that 10 years had elapsed since charge-sheet was filed could be no ground for allowing respondent to come back to post. (Paras 8, 10 & 11)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The bank had jurisdiction to suspend an employee when charges framed alleging offences involving moral turpitude, based on clause 19.3 of the First Bipartite Settlement, 1966. (!) (!) (!) - Moral turpitude includes offences such as forgery and wrongful withdrawal of money by a bank employee; suspension grounded on pending prosecution is valid if supported by material indicating such conduct. (!) (!) - The High Court erred in quashing the suspension order; the appellate court held that there was application of mind and that nearly 10 years elapsed since charge-sheet does not render suspension invalid. (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

JUDGMENT

Kirpal, J.-This is an appeal from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and quashed an order of suspension which had been passed pending prosecution launched against him. Briefly stated the facts are that during the year 1984-85, the respondent was working as Clerk-cum-Typist in Allahabad Bank with one of its branch at Lucknow. An investigation was conducted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment and a case was registered on 29.8.1986. The C.B.I./S.P.E., Lucknow, after investigation, submitted a report whereupon the Superintendent of Police wrote a letter dated 18.9.1987 to the appellant bank for according sanction for prosecution of the respondent and one other person namely Ajay Bhatia inter alia for criminal mis-conduct and cheating.

2. On the receipt of the aforesaid letter the appellant took steps to accord sanction to prosecute the respondent. It also decided to take action under clause 19.3 (a) of the First Bipartite Settlement 1966 between the management and the Union and to suspend the respondent. Accordingly, the suspension order dated 23.9.1987 was passed which reads as under :

"Since it is revealed that you while functioning as clerk-cum-typist in Allahabad Bank. Aalam Bagh, Lucknow during the year 1984-85 entered into a criminal conspiracy with Shri Ajai Bhatia. Clerk-cum-Cashier under suspension, Shri H.R. Gurnani Advocate, Lucknow and some unknown persons with the common object to commit the offences of criminal misconduct and cheating by adopting corrupt and illegal means or otherwise abusing your position by obtaining undue pecuniary gain for yourself and/or others and since steps to get you prosecuted have been taken, you are hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect under clause 19.3(a) of the First Bipartite Settlement date 19.10.1996 pending prosecution proceedings against you.

During suspension period you will be paid subsistence allowance as per rules. You will also not leave station without prior permission of the competent authority during suspension period.

You are also required to submit in writing your local postal address where you want to be communicated hereafter."

3. Pursuant to the sanction of the prosecution, a charge sheet dated 29.9.1987 was filed in the court against the respondent. Thereupon, the court issued summons on 26.11.1987 to the respondent. After a few months, the respondent filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the aforesaid order of suspension. By the impugned judgment dated 23.4.1991 the High Court came to the conclusion that by the mere fact that a person had entered into the criminal conspiracy, it could not be regarded that an offence involving "moral turpitude" had been committed and, therefore, the appellant had no jurisdiction to pass the order of suspension. The High Court, accordingly, quashed the suspension order and directed the payment of full salary and allowances to the respondent. This appeal arises as a consequent of special leave having been granted to the appellant.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent had committed an offence involving moral turpitude and, therefore, the appellant had the jurisdiction to suspend the respondent. The submission of Mr. R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondent, however was that on the facts and circumstances of the case when nearly 10 years have elapsed, this Court should not interfere. It was further submitted that there had been no application of mind by the bank to the passing of the suspension order and the High Court was, consequently, right in quashing the order of suspension.

5. The charge sheet, which was filed, specifies the acts of commission and ommissions which were alleged to have been committed by the respondent and others. The acts as specified by the charge-sheet are as follows :

"Shri Ajai Bhatia, While functioning as Clerk-cum-Cashier A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 477

IMPORTANT POINT Offence, involving a person employed in Bank dealing with money of general public, of Commission of forgery & wrongful withdrawal of money would be one involving moral turpitude".

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Offence, involving a person employed in Bank dealing with money of general public, of Commission of forgery & wrongful withdrawal of money would be one involving moral turpitude".