Radhakrishnan, J.

Removal of a government servant from service on the ground of conviction for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act be not sustained for the reason that it is not an offence involving moral turpitude is the question that has been referred to us for consideration.

2. Learned Judge referred this case expressing some doubts with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the reasoning of another learned Judge of this court in OP.No.10336 of 2002. Petitioner in this case challenges Ext.P3 order of dismissal dated 13-12-2004 placing reliance on the judgment in OP.10336 of 2002. Learned Single Judge felt that there cannot be a blanket declaration of law that the disciplinary authority shall not impose the penalty of dismissal or removal from service or any other major penalty on the sole ground that the conviction was for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned single Judge pointed out neither Article 311 of the Constitution of India nor Rule 18 of the K.C.S. (C.C. & A) Rules speaks about “moral turpitude” and those provisions do not classify offences as those involving moral turpitude and those not involving moral turpitude. Learned single Judge pointed out that what is provided in Rule 18 of the K.C.S. (CC & A) Rules, 1960 is that circumstances of the case shall be taken into account and therefore a wide proposition that the disciplinary authority is not legally entitled to impose penalty of dismissal or removal from service or any other major penalty on the sole ground that the conviction was for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is an over statement of law.

3. Petitioner was accused in S.T.134 of 2001. He had borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the complainant and issued a cheque for the same on 19-5-2001. Complainant had presented the cheque for encashment which was bounced, which led the filing of a complaint under section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Criminal court found that the petitioner was guilty of the offence and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the complainant under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Later order dated 13-12-2004 was passed by the second respondent dismissing the petitioner from service since he was convicted by the criminal court, the legality of which is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner Sri V.S. Sudheer placing reliance on a Division bench judgment of this Court reported in Saseendran Nair v. General Manager, 1996 (2) KLT 482 contended that the act of issuing a cheque without sufficient funds is not generally regarded as morally wrong or corrupt and that the offence under section 138 would not normally involve moral turpitude. Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Mohanan, 2000 (1) KLT 129 and contended that the impugned order is illegal due to violation of principles of natural justice since he was not given an opportunity to file objections against the order of dismissal.

5. Learned Government Pleader tried to sustain the order stating that as per sub clause (a) of the second proviso to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India no notice is to be served or no opportunity of being heard be given where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. Further counsel also submitted that if a government servant is convicted by a criminal court it is always open to the department to dismiss him or remove him from service or to impose any other punishment, for which no opportunity of being heard need be given.

6. Article 311 of the Constitution of India deals with dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. Article 311(