BECHU PRASAD Vs. DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The moot question for consideration in the present writ petition is regarding the scope and meaning of the phrase "moral turpitude", used in Regulation 83 of The U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter, referred to as ''the Regulations') which is to the following effect inter-alia :-

(2.) Before dealing with the question posed before the court, it would be appropriate to refer to the facts in brief. The petitioner was holding a class IV post in District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Gorakhpur branch Paniyara, District Maharajganj. A first information report being case crime no. 2 of 2002 under sections 379/411 I.P.C. read with section 26 of the Indian Forest Act was lodged against the petitioner and two others, namely, Chhote and Jhinak on 1.1.2002 at police station Paniyara, District Maharajganj in connection with the incident which had taken place on 1.1.2002. It is alleged that the petitioner and two others were illegally involved in cutting of sakhu wood and carrying the same on tractor- trolley no. UP56-3061. It was intercepted by the first informant H.C.P. Mohd. Aslam Khan and he lodged a first information report, in pursuance whereof, the petitioner was arrested and was placed under suspension on 14.3.2002. Subsequently, he was enlarged on bail and where after, suspension was revoked as an ad interim measure. After investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner and two other co-accused, under rule 3/28 of The Uttar Pradesh Transit of Timber and other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 (wrongly mentioned as section 3/28 of the U.P. Transit Act), for transporting forest produce without a transit pass. However, charges under sections 379/411 I.P.C. and section 26 of the Indian forest Act were dropped as the sakhu wood under transit belonged to the co-accused Chhote, which he had purchased from one Chanda Ram for Rs.8500/-. The petitioner and two other co-accused were subjected to criminal prosecution in criminal case no. 3037 of 2008. The petitioner, in order to save himself from long drawn criminal proceedings, preferred to admit his offence and whereupon, he was sentenced to imprisonment of one month and one day which he had already undergone before being granted bail and a fine of Rs.1000/-, failing which he had to undergo simple imprisonment of additional 15 days, by judgment dated 14.9.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj. The petitioner himself apprised the bank of the aforesaid judgment whereupon, the Committee of Management in its meeting dated 14.9.2013, resolved to dispense with the services of the petitioner. Respondent No.3 passed consequential order dated 30.9.2013 for removal of the petitioner from service of the bank in purported exercise of power under Regulation 83(ii). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had filed the instant writ petition.

(3.) In the aforesaid background, the question formulated above requires consideration. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.