IMPORTANT POINT
A bank must terminate the employment of any employee convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, as mandated by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

JUDGMENT :

(Krishna S. Dixit, J.)

This intra court appeal by the employer-bank seeks to call in question the learned Single Judge’s order dated 15.10.2003 whereby the respondent-employee’s Writ Petition No.29566/1997 having been favoured, the dismissal order dated 03.04.1997 as affirmed by the Appellate Order dated 05.08.1997 have been set at naught, with a direction for his reinstatement into service. Further direction also follows for according service & monetary benefits that otherwise would have accrued to him during the interregnum.

2. After service of notice, the respondent employee has entered appearance through his counsel who is not present before the court to assist in the proceedings. However, that would not deter the court from adjudging the two-decade-old cause. A litigant should know at the earliest point of time where he stands and from that view the matter has been heard this day, without unnecessarily elongating its pendency.

3. BRIEF FACT MATRIX:

(a) The respondent-employee who was in the Senior Manager Cadre ie., MMGS-III was charged for certain lapses in relation to lending money to the fictitious persons without duly securing the repayment of loans. This happened during the period between 02.06.1986 and 11.05.1990. On account of this, the bank has been put to a huge financial loss. The disciplinary proceedings having been held, penalty order by way of dismissal from service came to be passed by the Competent Authority on 03.04.1997. The Departmental Appeal laying a challenge to the same came to be negatived by the Appellate Authority namely the General Manager (Personnel) on 05.08.1997.

(b) In the meanwhile, the same set of facts had resulted into the prosecution of employee in Spl.CC No.141/2005 for the offences punishable u/ss. 120B r/w Secs.420, 468, 471 of IPC and u/ss.13(1)(d) & Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charges having been framed, trial was held by the Criminal Court that eventually resulted into his conviction vide order dated 19.06.2010 and he was sentenced to undergo a Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 years coupled with levy of fine of Rs.70,000/-in aggregate, with a usual default clause. His Criminal Appeal No.664/2010 c/w Crl.Appeal No.678/2010 came to be negatived by a learned Single Judge of this court vide order dated 19.09.2022. The matter having been carried in SLP No.12145/2022, the Apex Court vide order dated 02.01.2023 granted some reprieve to him. The sentence came to be modified by reducing the period of Imprisonment from three years to one year; however, the fine came to be enhanced from Rs.70,000/-to Rs.2 lakh.

(c) Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the appellant-bank seeks to falter the impugned order of the learned Single Judge arguing that: Once the disciplinary proceedings are duly held and penalty order has been passed, a Writ Court should be loathe to interfere and it is more so when delinquent employee’s departmental appeal has been negatived. Secondly, on the same set of facts the employee having tried is convicted & sentenced for the offences involving moral turpitude. This happened subsequent to disciplinary proceedings and therefore even otherwise he is liable to be discontinued from service in terms of Sec.10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. He has placed reliance on certain rulings in support of his submission. So contending, he seeks for allowing of the appeal. As already mentioned above, there is none to controvert the above submission from the side of respondent-employee.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Bank and having perused the appeal papers along with those produced with leave of the court, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

(i) During the relevant period the respondent had indiscriminately lent bank’s money to the fictitious persons without securing the repayment thereof and therefore bank has been put to a huge financial loss of more than Rs.13 lakh.