DILIPBHAI MANILAL PATEL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed his order of termination dated 20.05.1996, and the order dt. 20.06.2009 rejecting his request for reinstatement.

(2.) Brief stated, the facts, material for adjudication of the present petition, may be stated thus:- The petitioner was working with the respondent authority as a Cashier cum Clerk from 01.03.1986. On 22.08.1985, a criminal complaint was lodged against him, his brother and his father by one Ishwarbhai Hirabhai Patel under Sections 324 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The genesis of the offence was dispute between two families involving land. The said case was registered as Criminal Case No.2174 of 1986 and tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pardi. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pardi, convicted the petitioner for offences under 326 and 114 and sentenced him for one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1500.00 each and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner has to undergo three months simple imprisonment. The learned Judge also convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 325 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code imposing sentence of 9 months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The learned Judge was also pleased to convict the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 324 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code imposing sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.500.00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pardi in Criminal Case No.2174 of 1986, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.23 of 203 (Old No.13 of 1995) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad. The petitioner along with others were released on bail and substantive sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pardi was suspended till final disposal of the appeal. The aforesaid Criminal Appeal no.23 of 2002 (Old No.13 of 1995) was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Valsad vide order dated 25.09.2006, whereby the learned Appellate Court has been pleased to give benefit under the provisions of Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on condition of good behaviour for one year. In respect of good behavior, certificate was issued by the Senior Police Sub Inspector, Pardi dated 08.04.2008. By the show cause notice dated 16.04.1996, the respondent Bank called upon the explanation from the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from the bank service under Sec. 10(10(b) Sub-clause (1) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 14.05.1996 to the aforesaid show cause notice. Thereafter, by the order dated 20.05.196, the petitioner was discharged from the bank service by holding that the petitioner had committed an offence involving moral turpitue. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of discharge by filing Special Civil Application No.8115 of 1996. The said petition was withdrawn for making representation to the respondent authorities. The petitioner in his representation dated 10.05.2008 had drawn the attention of the bank about the decision by the appellate Court giving him benefit under Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. By the impugned communication dated 20.02.2009, the respondent rejected the request of the petitioner for reinstatement on the ground that since his conviction is maintained in appeal and the stigma remains, even if he granted benefit under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, he cannot be reinstated in services.

(3.) Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 324, 325 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be termed as more turpitude. He submitted that alleged offence was committed outside the premises of the bank and the same is nothing to do with his services. He has stated that the respondent authorities have erred in rejecting the request of the petitioner for reinstatement in the wake of the fact that the petitioner was granted benefit under Probation of Offenders Act.