Service dismissal on Section 138 conviction fails where the offence is not moral turpitude and no inquiry is held.

A dismissal founded solely on conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, without framing charges or holding a departmental inquiry, could be sustained under the service rule only if the offence involved moral turpitude. The HC held that a Section 138 offence does not, by itself, amount to moral turpitude, so the rule was not attracted. It also found the appellate order cryptic and lacking independent application of mind. The dismissal was therefore invalid, was set aside, and reinstatement was directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's dismissal from service, founded solely on a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and imposed without a departmental inquiry, was valid under the service rule permitting action on conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude.

Analysis: The dismissal order was based only on the petitioner's arrest, conviction and imprisonment in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and no definite charges were framed or inquiry held before imposing the penalty. The service rule could be invoked only where the conviction related to an offence involving moral turpitude. The Court held that an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 does not, by itself, amount to moral turpitude, and therefore the rule was not attracted. The appellate order was also found to be cryptic and reflective of no independent application of mind.

Conclusion: The dismissal was invalid and was set aside; reinstatement in service was directed.

---