TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the bank was entitled to suspend an employee pending prosecution on allegations amounting to moral turpitude under the First Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966.
Analysis: The settlement treated as an "offence" any offence involving moral turpitude for which the employee was liable to conviction and sentence, and authorised suspension where the management formed the opinion that the employee had committed such an offence and steps were taken to prosecute him. The allegations against the employee concerned forgery, impersonation, cheating, criminal conspiracy, and wrongful withdrawal of public money from bank accounts. On those facts, the conduct fell within the ordinary legal meaning of moral turpitude, namely conduct that is base, vile, depraved, or contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals. The existence of a police investigation and a charge-sheet alleging serious offences furnished sufficient material for the bank to act under the settlement.
Conclusion: The bank had jurisdiction to suspend the employee pending prosecution, and the High Court was not justified in quashing the suspension order.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a service settlement permits suspension pending prosecution for offences involving moral turpitude, serious allegations of forgery, cheating, impersonation, and misappropriation of public money constitute such moral turpitude and justify suspension on an objective assessment of the material before the employer.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
