JYOTI PARKASH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dtd. 18/3/2014 (Annexure P-3) and order dtd. 5/5/2014 (AnnexureP-5) whereby petitioner was compulsorily retired.

(2.) The brief facts of the case which are necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner was working with respondent-bank since 26/4/1980. The petitioner came to be implicated in two cheque dishonor cases. The petitioner had issued two cheques of Rs.1,30,000.00 each in favour of one person, namely Suresh Kumar. The cheques came to be dishonored on account of insufficient fund and Suresh Kumar filed two complaints under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short '1881 Act') against the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dtd. 25/8/2011 passed by JMIC, Rohtak. The petitioner was awarded sentence of 6 months. The petitioner preferred appeal which came to be dismissed, thus, petitioner had to suffer awarded sentence of 6 months. The respondent-bank issued a show cause notice dtd. 6/2/2014 (Annexure P-1) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be compulsorily retired on account of his conviction in two cheque dishonor cases. The petitioner vide order dtd. 18/3/2014 (Annexure P-3) came to be compulsorily retired from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before appellate authority which came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 5/5/2014 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner in the normal course had to retire in 2019 whereas he was compulsorily retired in 2014.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was compulsorily retired on the sole ground that he has been convicted for an offence which involved moral turpitude. This Court in Om Pal v. State of Haryana, 2015 (26) S.C.T. 231 and Jagroop Singh v. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others, 2017(2) L.A.R 251 has held that an employee cannot be dismissed from service on the ground of conviction under Sec. 138 of 1881 Act because conviction under Sec. 138 of 1881 Act does not involve moral turpitude. A similar view has been expressed by a Division Bench of Kerala of Kerala High Court in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. S. AbdulLatheef, 2005(4) S.C.T. 622 and Division Bench of Madras High Court in L. Manjula v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2015(27) S.C.T. 840.