BRAHMJEET KAUSHAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dtd. 27/6/2019 (Annexure P5) whereby the services of the respondents have been discharged from 14/12/2018 and for directing the respondents to grant all consequential benefits from 15/12/2018.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Branch Manager MMGS-III at Panipat and while in service, an FIR No.314 dtd. 27/5/2000 was registered under Sec. 304-B/406/498-A IPC against him and his family members wherein there were allegations of demand of dowry and abetment for committing suicide by the deceased-wife. He submits that the Sessions Court vide judgment dtd. 28/10/2002 (Annexure P2) acquitted the petitioner under Ss. 304-B and 406 IPC but was held guilty under Sec. 498-A IPC and was sentenced to under RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.5000.00. Resultantly, the respondent-Bank vide impugned order dtd. 19/6/2019 discharged the petitioner from service on the ground that the conviction under Sec. 498-A IPC amounts to offence involving moral turpitude, w.e.f. 14/12/2018 the date on which the trial court judgment assailed by the petitioner in CRA-S-1783-SB-2002 was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dtd. 14/12/2018.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dtd. 14/12/2018 argued that the Appointing Authority has merely recited that the petitioner stands "convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude" and has invoked Rule 68(7)(i) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 (in short, the 1992 Rules) and ordered his discharge from service w.e.f. 14/12/2018, without disclosing any reasons as to how conviction under Sec. 498-A IPC, arising out of a domestic matrimonial dispute, answers the description of an offence involving 'moral turpitude'. It is urged that neither any list of offences is prescribed by the Bank nor any discussion is found in the order showing application of the well-settled tests for "moral turpitude" as elucidated by the Supreme Court in State Bank of India & Others v. P. Soupramaniane, (2019) 18 SCC 135.