Back
High Court Of Delhi
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA - Appellant
Versus
OM PARKASH MALVALIYA - Respondent
Decided On : 11/18/1996
BANKING REGULATION ACT - DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEE - MORAL TURPITUDE - PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT - DISQUALIFICATION - PROTECTION.
Fact of the Case:
An employee of the appellant bank was dismissed from service without holding a departmental enquiry after he was convicted of an offence under the Bombay Police Act for indecent behavior and using abusive language against his superiors in the bank premises during office hours. The employee challenged his dismissal, arguing that the bank could not dismiss him without holding an enquiry and that he was protected from disqualification under the Probation of Offenders Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the bank was justified in dismissing the employee without holding an enquiry since his conduct amounted to "moral turpitude" within the meaning of Section 10(1)(b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 read with Clause 19.3(b) of the Bipartite Settlement. The court further held that the protection provided under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 did not apply to the employee as it did not wipe out the disqualification attached to the conviction.
Issues: 1. Whether the bank could dismiss the employee without holding a departmental enquiry? 2. Whether the employee was protected from disqualification under the Probation of Offenders Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the bank was justified in dismissing the employee without holding an enquiry since his conduct amounted to "moral turpitude" within the meaning of Section 10(1)(b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 read with Clause 19.3(b) of the Bipartite Settlement. The court reasoned that the employee's indecent behavior and use of abusive language against his superiors in the bank premises during office hours was a clear case of "moral turpitude" and that the bank was therefore entitled to dismiss him without holding an enquiry. 2. The court held that the protection provided under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 did not apply to the employee as it did not wipe out the disqualification attached to the conviction. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Karam Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. (1996) to hold that the disqualification attached to the conviction remained even though the employee was protected under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and modified the penalty of dismissal from service into one of removal from service.
( 1 ) VERY interesting question has been raised in this appeal, namely (i) whether the appellant bank could dismiss the respondent from its service without holding domestic enquiry merely on his being convicted by a cirminal Court ? (ii) Could the bank invoke Clause 19. 3 (b) of the Bipartite Settlement read with Section 10 (l) (d) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 for imposing a penalty of dismissal ? (iii) Can the Civl Court Banking Regulation Act, 1949 for imposing a penalty grant declaration enforcing a contract ? and finally (iv) whether due to the grant of probation the respondent is protected from the "disqualification" under Section 12 of the Probation of Oftenders Act, 1958 ?
( 2 ) TO appreciate the points raised in this appeal, we may look to relevant facts necessary for the determination of the same. The respondent herein was appointed as Peon in the Bank of Maharashtra (appellant herein) on 7th June, 1972. Thereafter he was promoted as Daftri. On 29th June 1977 he was arrested in a case under Section 110/112 and convicted under Section 117 of the Bombay Police Act. He was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20. 00. The revisional Court granted him the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. His sentence was conveited to one of anonition. In the meantime, the Bank on the basis of his conviction in that criminal case under the Act dismissed him from service. This according to Bank was in terms of the Bipartite Settlement, 1966 read with Section 10 (1 ) (b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The charge against the respondent was that he in drunken amonition. In the meantime, the Bank on the basis of his convicwith his superiors in the Bank premises. Before the Magistrate he pleaded guilty. Accordingly he was convicted and fined Rs. 20. 00 His medical examination report showed that he had consumed liquor but was not intoxicated. He misbehaved in the office during working hours.
( 3 ) AFTER his conviction, the appellant reiving on the provisions of Clause 19. 3 (b) of the Bipartite Settlement read with Section 10 (l) (b) of the Banking Regulation Act, dismissed him from service without holding departmental enquiry. Respondent felt aggrieved. He filed a civil suit seking declaration that his dismissal from service was bad as no departmental enquiry was conducted and that he had not incurred any disqualification to continue in service after he was granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. He should be deemed to be in service. The said suit was dismissed. Against dismissal the responent heie in. filed an appeal. The First Appellate Court accepted his appeal. It is against this order of the First Appellate Court dated 14th November, 1994 that the present appeal has been preferred by the Bank thereby raising the above legal points.
( 4 ) BEFORE dealing with the merits of this case reference can be made to the relevant provisions of the Banking rules and regulations and the Act. Relevant Clauses of the Bipartite Settlement, 1966 and Banking Regulation Act, 1949 beside of Probation of Offenders Act are reproduced as under :-- Clause 19. 2, 19. 3 (a) and 19. 3 (b) of the Bipartite Settlement :- 19. 2-By the expression "offence" shall be meant any offence involving inoral turpitude for which, an employee is liable to conviction and sentence under any provision of law. 19. 3 (a)-When in the option of the Management an employee, has committed an offence, unless he be otherwise prosecuted, the bank may take steps and prosecute him or get him prosecuted and in such a case he may also be suspended. 19. 3 (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 mentioned in Clause 19. 6 below". Section 10 (1) (b) of the Banking Regulation Act :- 10. Prohibition of employment of managing agents and restrictions on certain employment :- (1) No banking company- - (a) shall employ or managed by a managing agent, or (b) shall employ or
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
