The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of moral turpitude in justifying the dismissal from service under Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

1. The petitioner in the present proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of an order dated 4.4.1998 (Annexure-4), passed by the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Region-III, Patna, whereby, he has been dismissed from service, invoking Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 1949 Act), with effect from 17.8.1996, on which date the petitioner stood convicted in a criminal trial, for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner was working as Messenger in Barauni Refinery Branch in the District of Begusarai of the State Bank of India. A criminal case was lodged against him by Sushma Devi, the wife of the petitioner, vide Warsaliganj P.S. Case No. 27 of 1994 alleging offences punishable under Sections 307, 342 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that an altercation had taken place between the said Sushma Devi and the petitioner and on the same day while she had gone to her room and was sleeping, the petitioner and her mother sprinkled Kerosene Oil on her and thereafter the petitioner lit fire at the instance of his mother. She rescued herself somehow or the other by jumping into a well. It was also alleged that the accused persons, including this petitioner confined the informant in a room and did not allow any one to see her. The police submitted charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 307,324 and 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the petitioner was taken into custody on 10.4.1994, he was put under suspension by the Bank by an order dated 14.5.1994.

3. The Second Assistant Sessions Judge, Nawadah vide his judgment and order dated 17.8.1996 passed in Trial No. 7 of 1994/272 of 1994 convicted the petitioner of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for the period which he had already spent in jail, which came to be nearly a year and four months. The petitioner thereafter, approached the disciplinary authority i.e. Assistant General Manager, Zonal Office, Region-III, Patna by way of representation dated 26.8.1996 seeking revocation of his suspension on the ground that he was not convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and his conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, in the facts and circumstances of the case, could not be treated as conviction of an offence involving moral turpitude. He again filed a representation to the same effect on 8.12.1997. These representations have brought on record as Annexures 2 and 3 of the writ application.

4. The disciplinary authority i.e. the Assistant General Manager, Zonal Office, State Bank of India, thereafter, passed the following order on 4.4.1998 invoking the provisions of Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 which, is under challenge in the present writ application:-

“In view of your conviction under Sections 324 and 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by Hon’ble 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Nawada vide his order dated 17.8.1996 in the Sessions Trial No. 7/94/272/94, you are hereby dismissed from the Banks service in terms of Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with effect from the date of your conviction i.e. from 17.8.1996.

2. In this connection, the period of your suspension will be treated as period not spent on duty and hence no salary and allowances will be paid to you for such period.

3. Please acknowledge receipt thereof.”

5. Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 4.4.1998 on following grounds:-

(i) The petitioners conviction under Sections 324 and 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not covered by Section 10 (1) (b) (i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as the offences do not involve moral turpitude.

(ii) He has secondly, submitted that the impugned