Employee reinstated after dismissal based solely on Section 138 conviction without proper inquiry procedures

The HC set aside an employee's dismissal from service that was based solely on conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that offences under Section 138 do not necessarily involve moral turpitude, and dismissal without proper inquiry or framing definite charges was procedurally improper. The court distinguished between criminal conviction and moral turpitude, noting that past conduct considerations require proper inquiry procedures. The employee was ordered to be reinstated in service, and the petition was allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order of dismissal from service without inquiry, non-compliance with service rules, whether conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act constitutes moral turpitude.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Dismissal without Inquiry
The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal from service without any inquiry. The petitioner argued that a delinquent facing a proceeding is entitled to legal protection and a reasonable opportunity before any penalty is imposed. The petitioner contended that the dismissal was done without following the rules governing his services. The court noted that the suspension order did not specify any departmental proceeding and the dismissal order was issued immediately after the suspension without proper charges being framed. The court found that there was no proper application of mind by the appellate authority, and the dismissal lacked a valid inquiry process.

Issue 2: Conviction under Section 138 of NI Act and Moral Turpitude
The petitioner contended that a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not constitute moral turpitude as per the service rules. The court analyzed the relevant service rule, which allows disciplinary action for a conviction involving moral turpitude. The court referred to various legal precedents, including the Supreme Court and High Court judgments, to establish that an offense under Section 138 of the NI Act does not necessarily involve moral turpitude. The court emphasized that the past conduct of the petitioner should not be a relevant consideration when there was no proper inquiry and the dismissal was solely based on the conviction under the NI Act.

Judgment
The court set aside the order of dismissal dated 17.10.2014 and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in service. The court clarified that there was no direction for the payment of back wages, leaving it to the authorities to decide on such a claim. The writ petition was allowed based on the lack of proper inquiry and the absence of moral turpitude in the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act.

---