The judgment established that convictions for offences involving moral turpitude can justify discharge under Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and pending appeal does not bar such action.

The petitioners services were dispensed with by the order of the second respondent dated 06. 1999 by exercising the power under Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 read with Paragraph 521 (2)(b) of the Shastri Award. It was stated in the order that the petitioner was convicted for an offence under section 498 A, IPC and imposed with a penalty of six months imprisonment and also convicted for an offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and imposed with a punishment of imprisonment for a period of six months together with a fine of Rs.500/- by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. This was on account of the complaint given by petitioners wife Mrs.Rajeswari before the All Women Police Station at Ramanathapuram and the same was registered in Crime No.12 of 1999. Subsequently, the case was tried as C.C.No.4 of 1996 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. After the trial, the petitioner was found guilty and was imposed with the punishment of conviction on both counts as stated earlier.

2. The petitioner had preferred Crl.A.No.930 of 1997 before this Court. This Court had suspended the sentence. It is significant to note that the petitioners original name in the bank records as well as in the Criminal Court is Ramuvel and subsequently he has assumed the name of Mohammed Abdul Rahim.

3. The petitioner after getting his sentence suspended by this Court on 011. 1997, wrote a letter to the respondent bank stating that since the sentence has been suspended, there was no question of any discharge from service and therefore, he must be restored to duty. As he did not get any reply, he filed the present writ petition before this Court and the same was admitted on 17. 1999.

4. The petitioner in this writ petition has raised the following contentions:-

a) Para 521(2)(b) of the Shastri Award cannot be applied to his case as he is a permanent employee and such a discharge order cannot be passed without disciplinary action.

b) Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 cannot be invoked in a case where there is a private dispute between an husband and his wife and his conviction cannot amount to a moral turpitude.

c) Since the petitioners conviction has been suspended and it is pending in appeal, the conviction had not reached its finality and, therefore, the power of discharge cannot be invoked by the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India -vs-Workmen reported in (1991) 1 SCC 13 for the purpose of showing that an order under para 521 cannot be a discharge simpliciter if it is imposed as a punishment. Therefore, in the present case, when the petitioner had been discharged for a punishment, the said provision cannot be invoked.

6. He also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Management of Tractors & Farms Equipment Limited and First Additional Labour Court, Madras and another reported in 1982 II LLJ 403 for the purpose of showing that a conviction under the Prohibition Act was held to be not amounting to moral turpitude.

7. Taking the second argument, it is necessary to refer to the provision of law in this regard. Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 reads as follows:-

10. Prohibition of employment of Managing Agents and restrictions on certain forms of employment-

.(1) No banking company-

.(a) (omitted)

.(b) Shall employ or continue the employment of any person.

.(i) Who is, or at any time has been, adjudicated insolvent, or has suspended payment or has compounded with his creditors, or who, is or has been, convicted by a criminal court of an offence involving moral turpitude; ....."

8. The term moral turpitude came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar -vs- State of Haryana reported in (1996) 4 SCC 17 and in para 12 it is stated as follows:-

12. “Moral turpitude” is an expression which is used in legal as also societal pa