N. Elangovan vs Indian Bank

By the order impugned, the petitioner/appellant''s request for gratuity, leave encashment and travel expenses was rejected on the ground that an officer, whose services were terminated by way of punishment, is not eligible for the same.

Challenging the order impugned dated 22.9.2006, the appellant herein filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 1382 of 2007 wherein, the learned single Judge, by making reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank and Another Vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola, , dismissed the writ petition. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no bar in law prohibiting the grant of the benefits sought for as there is no moral turpitude involved. The learned single Judge has misconstrued the decision of the Supreme Court and has not appreciated the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in (A. Padmanabhan Vs.-Joint Commissioner of Labour (W.A. Nos. 118 and 144 of 2009) in a right perception.

The appellant was imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement. The punishment imposed has become final. The proved charge against the appellant is that of forgery and misappropriation. The fact that the charges framed against the appellant were proved is not in dispute.

Considering the term moral turpitude, the Supreme Court, in Allahabad Bank and Another Vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola, , has observed as follows:-

It is evident from the bare perusal of the aforesaid clauses that if in the opinion of the management, an employee has committed an offence, then the bank may take steps to prosecute him and in such a case, he may also be suspended. The word " offence" occurring in clause 19.3(a) has been defined in clause 19.2 to mean any offence involving "moral turpitude" for which an employee is liable to conviction and sentence under any provision of law.

What is an offence involving "moral turpitude" must depend upon the facts of each case. But whatever may be the meaning which may be given to the term "moral turpitude" it appears to us that one of the most serious offences involving "moral turpitude" would be where a person employed in a banking company dealing with money of the general public, commits forgery and wrongfully withdraws money which he is not entitled to withdraw.

This Court in Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another, dealt with the question as to what is the meaning of expression "moral turpitude" and it was observed as follows:

"Moral turpitude" is an expression which is used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity.

This expression has been more elaborately explained in Baleshwar Singh Vs. District Magistrate and Collector, Banaras and Others, , where it was observed as follows:

The expression moral turpitude is not defined anywhere. But it means anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. It implies depravity and wickness of character or disposition of the person charged with the particular conduct. Every false statement made by a person may not be moral turpitude, but it would be so if it discloses vileness or depravity in the doing of any private and social duty which a person owes to his fellowmen or to the society in general. If therefore the individual charged with a certain conduct owes a duty, either to another individual or to the society in general, to act in a specific manner or not to so act and he still acts contrary to it and does so knowingly, his conduct must be held to be due to vileness and depravity. It will be contrary to accepted customary rule and duty between man and man.

In our opinion the aforesaid observations correctly spell out the true meaning of the expression "moral turpitude". Applying the aforesaid test, if the allegations made against the respondent are proved, it will clearly show that he had committed an offence involving moral turpitude and, therefore, the appellant had the jurisdiction to suspend him under the aforesaid clause 19.3. The High Court observed that there was nothing on record to suggest that the management had formed an opinion objectively on the consideration of all relevant material available against the petitioner that in the circumstances of the case the criminal acts attributed to the petitioner implied depravity and vileness of character and are such as would involve moral turpitude. It did not regard entering into a criminal conspiracy to commit the aforesaid offences as being an offence involving moral turpitude. We one, to say the least, surprised at the conclusion which has been arrived by the Allahabad High Court. There was material on record before the appellant, in the form of the report of the C.B.I./S.P.E., which clearly indicated the acts of commission and omissions, amounting to "moral turpitude" alleged to have been committed by the respondent. Further more the respondent has been charged with various offences allegedly committed while he was working in the bank and punishment for which could extend upto ten years imprisonment (in case the respondent is convicted under Section 467 I.P.C.).

In view of the said decision rendered by the Supreme Court, we do not find any merit to entertain this writ appeal. The Division Bench of this Court did not take into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.