P S PATEL Vs. STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a bank employee, who was in permanent service has chalienged the order dated 28. 10. 1997 passed by the respondent discharging him from service on the ground that the petitioner has incurred disqualification to continue in service in terms of Regulation 68 (7) (i) (ii) of the s. B. S. (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 (for short "service Regulation") since the petitioner came to be convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude by the high court in exercise of power under the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and had undergone the sentence.

(2.) LEARNED advocate Shri Supehia for the petitioner has raised mainly three fold contentions, that the order impugned is contrary to the principles of natural justice and no opportunity whatsoever was afforded to the petitioner to explain his version and to submit whether the offence involves moral turpitude and whether without initiating disciplinary action under regulation 67 against a permanent employee of the Bank order of discharge can be passed. Secondly, it is also contended that there is no provision of appeal against the order impugned and in absence of any remedy, only option available to the petitioner, is to prefer a writ petition before this Court by invoking the powers under Article 226 of Constitution of india and since there is absence of findings by the authority concerned on moral turpitude, the order impugned suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and unreasonableness and, therefore, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thirdly, the act alleged against the petitioner is not part of performance of his official duty and even if it is presumed that the conviction was pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in contempt proceedings, the same was against the petitioner in his individual status and not as a bank officer.

(3.) SHRI Vakil, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the order impugned is passed by the authority after taking into consideration Regulation 68 (7) (i)Cii) of the S. B. S. (Officers') Service regulations, 1979, framed by the Central board of Directors of State Bank of India in exercise of powers conferred by Section 63 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary banking) Act, 1959, which is in consonance with Section 10 (1) of the Banking regulation Act, 1949; and which mandates the bank authority to discontinue the service of an employee of the banking company, who is convicted by a criminal court for an offence involving moral turpitude. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent-Bank has further submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 10 (1) (a) of Banking regulation Act, 1949 and Regulation 68 (7) (i) (ii)of the S. B. S. (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, no opportunity is to be afforded to the bank employee who is convicted by the Court of an offence involving in a moral turpitude irrespective of the status of such a bank employee whether such employee is permanent or not.