Moral turpitude and cheque dishonour: Section 138 conviction did not justify discharge from bank service on these facts.

Whether a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act involves moral turpitude for discharge from bank service depends on the nature of the conduct and the facts of the case, not on the section alone. Moral turpitude requires conduct showing depravity, baseness, or behaviour shocking to societal conscience. A Section 138 dishonour offence is not equivalent to cheating and arises from failure to pay after statutory notice. On the facts found, the offence did not disclose moral depravity, so discharge from service on that ground could not be sustained and reinstatement with consequential benefits was directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether conviction for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act involves moral turpitude so as to justify discharge from bank service under Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act.

Analysis: The statutory expression "moral turpitude" is not defined and must be understood by reference to the nature of the act, the state of mind, and whether the conduct reflects depravity, baseness, or an act shocking to the moral conscience of society. An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not to be equated with cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, because liability under Section 138 arises on failure to make payment after statutory notice and not merely on issuance of a cheque without funds. The question whether an offence involves moral turpitude cannot be answered by the section alone and must be decided on the facts of each case. On the facts found, the dishonour offence did not disclose moral depravity or conduct involving moral turpitude.

Conclusion: The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act did not involve moral turpitude in the facts of the case, and the discharge from service could not be sustained on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeal succeeded, the discharge order was quashed, and reinstatement with consequential benefits was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: Whether an offence involves moral turpitude depends on the facts and character of the conduct, and a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not, by itself, constitute moral turpitude.

---