CHITRA SINGH Vs. SARVA U P GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was employed as Branch Manager, Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank sponsored by Punjab National Bank, Branch Askaripur, District Bijnor. The petitioner was convicted under an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under the judgment and order of Sessions Court, Moradabad, dated 23.7.2013 (copy of judgment of the Sessions Court has been enclosed as Annexure 2 to the present writ petition). Because of the order of conviction and punishment, the Disciplinary Authority, namely, Chairman of the Bank passed an order dated 16.8.2013 dismissing the petitioner from service after invoking the powers as per the Regulation 30(3)(a)(b) of Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal with reference to Regulation 39 which has been dismissed by the Board of the Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank as informed under the letter of General Manager, dated 14.12.2013 as not maintainable and that status quo be maintained till criminal appeal filed by the petitioner is finally decided by the High Court. Against these two orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) We have heard Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Saxena on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R.N. Singh, Advocate on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents pointed out that the issue as to whether the offence of murder would involve moral turpitude or not has been examined by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Ran Vijay Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2003 2 AWC 1385. The High Court has after recording the various judgment of the Apex Court as well as of the High Court in paragraph 19 has recorded its conclusion the facts of the case none of the exceptions mentioned in paragraph No. 19 of the Division Bench Judgment are attracted so as to mitigate against the Act of killing. He, therefore, submits that in the facts of this case the order passed by the authority dismissing the petitioner from service, warrants no interference.