IMPORTANT POINT
A conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not involve moral turpitude, and dismissal without inquiry violates due process.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging an order of dismissal from service dated 17.10.2014 which has also been upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 08.12.2014. The subsequent representation of the petitioner not yielding any positive results, he has approached this Court for redressal of his grievance.

2. As per the facts projected in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed, initially as a Cleaner Boy on 08.05.1986 in the Tea Research Association, Tocklai Tea Research Institute, Jorhat. Subsequently, vide order dated 01.04.2006, he was promoted to Grade Ad 1(3). While serving as such, a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted against him by an individual which was registered as CR No. 191/2009 in the Court of the learned CJM, Jorhat. In the said case, a judgment was pronounced on 10.06.2014 whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced with 6 months of imprisonment and a penalty of Rs. 2(two) lakhs. Consequent thereto, on 04.09.2014, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody as a result of which he could not attend his duties. The petitioner had preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Court, Jorhat which was admitted on 15.10.2014 with a further order for enlarging the petitioner on bail. Subsequently, vide order dated 13.11.2014, the sentence was stayed. On 15.10.2014 itself, an order of suspension was issued by the respondent authorities. The said suspension was however with effect from 04.09.2014 i.e. the date when the petitioner was arrested. Immediately thereafter, on 17.10.2014, the order of dismissal from service was passed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected on 08.12.2014 whereafter the petitioner had submitted further representations including legal notice in which he did not get any relief.

3. I have heard Shri Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Barman, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.

4. Shri Mannan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has formulated the following grounds of challenge. Firstly, dismissal from service was done without any inquiry. Secondly, the Rules governing the services of the petitioners were not followed at all. Thirdly, a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act do not constitute a charge of moral turpitude, so as to attract any clause of the Rules.

5. Shri Mannan, learned counsel has submitted that a delinquent facing a proceeding is entitled to have the protection of law and a reasonable opportunity is to be afforded to him before any order of penalty is imposed upon him. He further submits that there was no charge framed against the petitioner and only on 15.10.2014 an order of suspension from service was issued followed by the impugned order of dismissal just after two days i.e. 17.10.2014. It is submitted that though in an earlier disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner was inflicted the penalty of reduction in rank, the said penalty would not have any effect in the present impugned action. As regards the contention raised in the affidavit-in-opposition that no notice is required in case of conviction by a Court, the learned counsel has submitted that a conviction which is included in the Rules necessarily has to be a conviction which involves moral turpitude. He has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Saseendran Nair Vs. General Manager, State Bank of Travancore and Ors. MANU/KE/0323/1995 wherein it has been laid down that an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act would not involve moral turpitude. A similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mangi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Secondary Education, Secretariat and Ors. 2023 RJ-JD 20694. Reliance has also been placed upon the case of P. Mohanraj Vs. Shah Brothers Ispat P