Conviction under Section 138 NI Act does not constitute moral turpitude relating to employment if it arises from personal debts; wrongful termination necessitates reinstatement and benefits.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint petitioner No.2 on compassionate basis in lieu of death of his father who worked as a Chowkidar with the respondent- Corporation. Further, a prayer has been made for quashing of order dated 06.10.2020 (Annexure P-9) whereby the deceased employee was dismissed from service as well as order dated 16.09.2022 (Annexure P-10) vide which the representation submitted by the petitioners for release of service benefits and compassionate appointment for petitioner No.2 was rejected. Additionally, it is prayed that the retiral benefits of the deceased be released to petitioner No.1 at an interest of 12% p.a.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The husband of petitioner No.1 namely Dharampal Singh (hereinafter ‘deceased’) was a regular employee of the respondent-Corporation, working at the post of a Chowkidar. The services of the deceased were dispensed with vide order dated 15.04.2015 on account of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI Act’). Aggrieved by the same, the deceased filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 19.01.2016 (Annexure P-3), resulting in his acquittal. The deceased also filed a civil suit seeking declaration of order dated 15.04.2015 to be illegal. As an upshot of the same, the deceased was ordered to be reinstated vide judgment dated 19.07.2017 (Annexure P-4) which was also upheld by the appellate Court (Annexure P-5). The respondent-Corporation moved RSA-4209-2019 before this Court, challenging the same. Unfortunately, the deceased passed away on 15.06.2022. However, neither retiral benefits have been released to the petitioners nor has petitioner No.2 been considered for compassionate appointment. Hence, the present writ petition.

CONTENTIONS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the deceased has been duly exonerated in the criminal case and, his termination orders have been set aside by the Civil Court. However, certain benefits like gratuity and leave encashment have not been released to the petitioners till date, which has caused great financial hardship on the family. Petitioner No.2, son of the deceased, approached the respondent-Corporation for release of said benefits and considering him for compassionate appointment, but no action was taken. This Court while dismissing judgment dated 23.08.2023 in RSA-4209-2019 preferred by the respondent-Corporation specifically stated that conviction in a private complaint would not automatically lead to termination. Learned counsel also places reliance on the judgments rendered by Coordinate benches of this Court in Tarsem Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2020(3) PLR 26. Further, the deceased was involved in criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI Act’), however they emanate from money borrowed by him for survival since he was unjustly dismissed from service vide order dated 15.04.2015 (Annexure P-2) and had no source of livelihood. Moreover, this Court in Jagroop Singh vs. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others 2017(2) LAR 251 and Om Pal vs. State of Haryana and others 2015(26) SCT 231 has held dispute qua dishonour of a cheque issued for personal