S NOOR AHMED Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner questions the order of the second respondent dated 25/03/1986 discharging the petitioner from the service of 'Duftry'. The petitioner joined service of the State Bank of India in the year 1972 as a Messenger. He was later promoted to the post of Duftry in the year 1981. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by the second respondent, stating that the petitioner suppressed his conviction prior to his joining service in the respondent bank, in the declaration made by him at the time of entering into service, the further charge was that the petitioner was convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion after enquiry, that the conviction got obliterated on release of the petitioner under Sec. 4 of Probation of Offenders Act and that he is not guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and by proceedings dated 8/04/1985, held the petitioner guilty and removed him from service. The petitioner questions the said order of the disciplinary authority.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that he was convicted under Section 304-AIPC and that the offence did not amount to an offence involving moral turpitude. The further contention is that even if the offence involves moral turpitude, the conviction got obliterated as the petitioner was released under Sec. 4 of Probation of Offenders Act and that the conviction is non est in the eye of law. He further contends that he signed the typed declaration in the year 1972 when he joined service in the respondent bank and that it was not his intention to suppress any material facts and that the was not permitted to be represented by a legal counsel at the enquiry, that the impugned order was made mechanically on the basis of the legal advice taken from the legal department and was made mechanically.

(3.) The contention of the respondents is that the disciplinary authority assessed the evidence and came to its own conclusion and imposed the punishment against the petitioner and was competent to differ from the report of the Enquiry Officer and was not bound to accept the report. It was further submitted that the petitioner was charged with an offence under Sec. 302 IPC and was convicted under Sec. 304-A IPC, which involved moral turpitude. Inasmuch as the petitioner was found to have pointed a gun at the victim and pulled the trigger in spite of being warned by the deceased that the gun was loaded and the petitioner did not act in the manner in which he should have on being warned, and that he did not show the consideration and care that was indeed needed in respect of another fellow being. It was also contended that the petitioner concealed the fact that he was convicted of an offence in the declaration he made before he was appointed and that such an act of the petitioner amounted to gross mis-conduct in terms of paragraph 521(4)(j) of Shastri award, read with paragraph 18-28 of Desai award.