( 1 ) RESPONDENTS in W. P. No. 10849/88 have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition with certain observations. The respondent herein (writ-petitioner) was an employee (member of Sub-Staff) of the Indian Bank. He was prosecuted and convicted of an offence under Section 354, I. P. C. (outraging the modesty of a woman) in C. C. No. 56/1987 on the file of the II Addl. Judicial first Class Magistrate, Eluru, and sentenced to one year s rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, however, the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 22-3-1988, while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence and ordered him to be released under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act.

( 2 ) EVEN during the pendency of the said appeal the appellant-Bank terminated the services of the respondent by order dated 15-4-1987, with effect from 10-4-1987. The termination is based solely upon the fact that the respondent has been convicted by a Criminal Court, and since the offence for which he has been convicted involves moral turpitude, he cannot be continued in employment in view of the provisions of Section 10 (l) (b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, lead with para 1903 (b) of the Bipartite settlement. The termination was made effective from the date of the order of the learned Magistrate. After the judgment of the learned Sessions judge, the respondent (petitioner) made a representation to the Bank requesting for reinstatement. He relied upon the observations of the learned sessions Judge that "the behaviour of the appellant (respondent herein) cannot be said to be indecent", and that the offence committed by him, if at all, amounts to an attempt to outrage the modesty of a woman, but not to outraging the modesty of a woman. The Bank, however, declined to revise its order, whereupon the respondent approached this Court by way of a writ-petition. The learned single Judge quashed the order of termination, mainly relying upon Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, as interpreted by this Court in Satyanarayana vs. L. I. C. and the decisions of the supreme Court in Divisional Personnel Officer vs. T. R. Challapan and shankar Dass vs. Union of India. The learned Judge held that by virtue of section 12, no disqualification can be attached to the respondent (writ petitioner) on account of his conviction and, therefore, the order of termination based squarely upon such conviction is unsustainable in law. The learned Judge, however, observed that his order shall not preclude the Bank authorities from initiating an enquiry against the writ petitioner, if they choose to do so, according to law, with respect to the alleged misconduct. The view of the learned single Judge is assailed in this Writ Appeal.

( 3 ) SECTION 10 (1) (b) cf the Bar king Regulation Act reads as follows : "10. Prohibition of employment of managing agents and restrictions on certain employment : (1) No banking company (a) shall employ or be managed by a managing agent ; or (b) shall employ or continue the employment of any person (i) who is, or at any time has been, adjudicated insolvent, or has suspended payment or has compounded with his creditors, or who is, or has been, convicted by a criminal court of an offence involving moral turpitude ; or (ii) xx xx xx xx. . . . . . ".

( 4 ) PARA 19. 3 (b) the of Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 reads thus :"19. 2: By the expression offence shall be meant any offence involving moral turpitude for which an employee is liable to conviction and sentence under any provision of law. 19. 3 : (a) When in the opinion of the management an employee has committed an offence, unless he be otherwise prosecuted, the bank may take steps to prosecute him or get him prosecuted and in such a case he may also be suspended. (b) If he be convicted, he may be dismissed with effect from the date of his conviction or be given any lesser form of punishment as