The compounding of the offence does not result in acquittal on merits and does not clear the individual's character or vindicate their conduct.

1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the respondent in Ref. No.CNC SSW 11094 E113(i) RJN dated 12.1.2000 and quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with all backwages.

2. The petitioner was a clerk in the respondent Bank since 1981 and he was posted to various Branches. The petitioner was prosecuted for offence under Section 420 IPC in C.C. No.272 of 1992 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirunelveli. The Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner to undergo rigourous imprisonment for one year as well as pay a fine. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred C.A. No.114 of 1999 on the file of the Sessions Court, Tirunelveli. Pending the appeal, the respondent Bank, by proceedings dated 12.1.2000, on coming to know about the conviction, in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation 21 (3)(a) read with Regulation 21 (4) of Chapter XI of the Canara Bank Staff Regulations, dismissed petitioner from the service of the bank from the date of conviction. Challenging the said dismissal, the petitioner moved the present writ petition, as according to him when the criminal appeal is pending before the Sessions Court, the dismissal is arbitrary and illegal, besides it is in violation of principles of natural justice. Challenging the said dismissal based upon conviction, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner moved Crl.M.P.208 of 2000 in C.A. No.114 of 1999 on the file of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, with the consent of the complainants, for leave to compound. The learned Sessions Judge granted leave as the complainants have filed a consent affidavit and the offence being compoundable under Section 420. The Appellate Court, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 320 (5) granted leave as a result of which the learned Sessions Judge passed orders under Section 320 (8) of The Code of Criminal Procedure. Based upon this order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mr.Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner mainly contended that the conviction having been set aside and the dismissal being based upon conviction, the order impugned has to be quashed and a mandamus should be issued to reinstate the petitioner with all benefits.

4. Per contra, Mr.Sathiyamohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank contended that the writ petitioner was prosecuted for offence under Section 420 I.P.C., as he cheated 16 persons by representing to them that he will arrange for securing jobs to them in Saudi Arabia and he had received Rs.1.40 lakhs in all, took those persons to Mumbai and left them stranded there and the petitioner absconded from the place. As against the petitioner's wife, she was charge-sheeted as a accomplice to her husband and in certain cases she issued a cheque in her name. After examination of 31 witnesses and full-fledged trial, the Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner and his wife and imposed the punishment of rigourous imprisonment for one year, besides a fine of Rs.5,000/= by judgment dated 15.7.99.

5. Based upon the conviction, the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank, on a consideration of the conviction and in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation 21 (3)(a) read with Regulation 21 (4), dismissed the petitioner from service under Regulation 4 (a) of Chapter XI of Canara Bank Employees Service Regulation.

6. It is contended that in terms of Section 10 (1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, no banking company shall employee or continue employment of any person, who is or at any time has been convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude. The various allegations set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition has been denied and it is a fact that the petitioner was convicted. Hence, it is contended that on the date when the order was passed there w