2010 (8) TMI 1098 - SC - Indian Laws

Employee dismissed for Rs. 5000 embezzlement under Section 409 IPC cannot claim reinstatement despite probation

The SC dismissed the appeal of an employee who was terminated for embezzlement of Rs. 5000/- under Section 409 IPC. The Court held that moral turpitude ... Dismissal of the appellant from service on the ground of conviction of the appellant in criminal case involving moral turpitude - Meaning of word 'Moral Turpitude' - Whether the benefit granted to the appellant under the provisions of Act, 1958 makes him entitled to reinstatement in service - HELD THAT:- From the record, it is evident that moral turpitude means anything contrary to honesty, modesty or good morals. It means vileness and depravity. In fact, the conviction of a person in a crime involving moral turpitude impeaches his credibility as he has been found to have indulged in shameful, wicked, and base activities. Undoubtedly, the embezzlement of ₹ 5000/- by the appellant, for which he had been convicted, was an offence involving moral turpitude. The Statutory provisions of the Act, 1949, provide that the Management shall not permit any person convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude to continue in employment. Once a Criminal Court grants a delinquent employee the benefit of Act, 1958 its order does not have any bearing so far as the service of such employee is concerned. The word 'disqualification' in Section 12 of the Act, 1958 provides that such a person shall not stand disqualified for the purposes of other Acts like the Representation of the People Act, 1950 etc. The conviction in a criminal case is one part of the case and release on probation is another. Therefore, grant of benefit of the provisions of Act, 1958, only enables the delinquent not to undergo the sentence on showing his good conduct during the period of probation. In case, after being released, the delinquent commits another offence, benefit of Act, 1958 gets terminated and the delinquent can be made liable to undergo the sentence. Therefore, in case of an employee who stands convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude, it is his misconduct that leads to his dismissal. Undoubtedly, the appellant was convicted by the Criminal Court for having committed the offence under Section 409 IPC and was awarded two years' sentence. The appellate court granted him the benefit of Act, 1958. The Tribunal rejected his claim for re-instatement and other benefits taking note of the fact that appellant was given an opportunity by the Management to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The appellant submitted his reply to the said show cause notice. The Management passed the order of dismissal in view of the provisions of the Act, 1949. The Tribunal also took into consideration the contents of the Bi-Partite Settlement applicable in the case and rejected the appellant's claim. The High Court considered appellant's grievance elaborately as is evident from the impugned judgment. We could not persuade ourselves, in the aforesaid fact-situation, that any other view could also be possible. Thus, we find no force in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the benefit granted to the appellant under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 entitles him to reinstatement in service.2. Whether the conviction of an employee in an offence involving moral turpitude permits the disciplinary authority to dismiss the employee from service.Summary:Issue 1: Benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Reinstatement in ServiceThe appellant argued that once granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Act 1958), the respondent-Bank should have considered his reinstatement, as the benefit under Section 12 of the Act 1958 removes 'disqualification.' The Supreme Court, however, held that the benefit under the Act 1958 only removes the punishment (sentence) and not the fact of conviction. The Court cited several precedents, including *Harichand v. Director of School Education* (1998) and *Union of India v. Bakshi Ram* (1990), to clarify that Section 12 of the Act 1958 applies to disqualifications under other statutes and does not prevent disciplinary actions based on the conviction itself. The Court emphasized that the conviction remains valid for the purposes of employment decisions, and the benefit of probation does not entitle the appellant to reinstatement.Issue 2: Conviction for an Offence Involving Moral Turpitude and Dismissal from ServiceThe respondent-Bank argued that the appellant's conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude justified his dismissal from service. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the conviction for embezzlement of Rs. 5000/- under Section 409 IPC constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude. The Court referred to the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Act 1949), specifically Section 10(1)(b)(i), which mandates that a banking company shall not employ or continue the employment of any person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. The Court explained that moral turpitude implies conduct contrary to justice, honesty, or morality, and the appellant's actions met this criterion. The Court also noted that the Tribunal and the High Court had correctly upheld the dismissal, considering the statutory provisions and the facts of the case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant's conviction justified his dismissal from service, and the benefit of probation under the Act 1958 did not entitle him to reinstatement. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court.