Conviction under cheque dishonour law did not itself prove moral turpitude or justify dismissal without departmental inquiry.

Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arising from a cheque dishonour in a private dispute, was held not to involve moral turpitude by itself and could not justify summary dismissal from service. The Punjab and Haryana HC also held that Rule 14(iii) of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employee Punishment and Appeals Rules could be used only where the punishing authority recorded written satisfaction, with cogent reasons, that a regular departmental inquiry was not reasonably practicable. As no such reasons or satisfaction were recorded, removal from service could not be sustained and the termination order was liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether removal from service on the basis of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be sustained without holding a regular departmental inquiry, and whether such conviction amounted to moral turpitude warranting dismissal.

Analysis: The petitioner's conviction arose from dishonour of a cheque in a private dispute and was treated as stemming from a civil transaction rather than misconduct connected with service. The Court held that an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 does not, by itself, involve moral turpitude so as to justify summary dismissal. It further held that Rule 14(iii) of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employee Punishment and Appeals Rules could be invoked only when the punishing authority recorded written satisfaction with cogent reasons explaining why inquiry was not reasonably practicable; no such satisfaction or reasons were recorded in the impugned order.

Conclusion: The removal from service could not be sustained and the termination order was liable to be set aside.

---