J U D G M E N T

VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.:

1. By way of the present petition the petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and consequential benfits and for quashing the order dated 20th July, 2001 passed by respondent No.1 whereby punishment of dismissal was imposed on the petitioner.

2. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was working as peon with the respondent Andhra Bank. While working at Vishwash Nagar, Branch, Shahdara, Delhi of the respondent Bank, the petitioner hurt his superior officer Shri Narinder Pal. FIR No.116/92 under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as „IPC‟) was registered at Vivek Vihar Police Station against the petitioner.

3. The respondent Bank also issued a charge sheet dated 23rd October, 1992 against the petitioner for holding disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner replied to the charge sheet and denied the charges. He further pleaded that the incident occurred as Mr.Narender Pal used to harras him and on the said date provoked him.

4. The disciplinary authority upon proving of charge, vide order dated 27th September, 1994 ordered stoppage of four annual increments of the petitioner in time scale with cumulative effect.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR No.116/92, criminal prosecution was instituted against the petitioner by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and vide order dated 27th October, 1998 held the petitioner guilty under Section 325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of eight months.

6. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 27th October, 1998 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi. The appeal of the petitioner was also rejected by the learned ASJ vide order dated 27th June, 1999.

7. The petitioner thereafter preferred revision petition bearing Criminal Revision No.238/1999 against the order of the learned ASJ before this Court. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 27th September, 2001 and the order of conviction was confirmed and the order on sentence was reduced to that already undergone.

8. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 16th September, 2000 calling upon him as to why he should not be dismissed for having punished by the Court under Section 325 IPC. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 12th October, 2000 to the show cause notice.

9. It is stated that consequent to the stay of the order of the trial court in the revision petition, the respondent Bank allowed the petitioner to join duties. He remained on duty till 20th July, 2001 till the order of dismissal from service was conveyed to him vide respondent Bank‟s letter dated 20th July, 2001.

10. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition by contending that the respondent Bank did not follow the rules and the petitioner could not have been punished twice for the same misconduct.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgments of „Mangali v. Chhakki Lal and Others‟, AIR 1963 Allahabad 527; „Jaysing Raugarao Raut v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Another‟, (I) L.L.J. Bombay 117; „State Bank of India and another vs. Mohammed Abdul Rahim‟, (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 67, argued that the respondent Bank has misconstrued the term 'moral turpitude' for dismissing the petitioner. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment only and such sentence does not involve the offence of moral turpitude.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner was forced to face the trial in the FIR and also the disciplinary proceedings which is in clear violation of the provisions of para 19.3 and 19.4 of the Bipartite Settlement which govern the service conditions of bank employees in workmen cadre and which pr