TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (7) TMI 357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w.e.f. 18-8-1981 forfeiting all rights and privileges accrued to him from his past service. The order of dismissal has not been challenged by the third Respondent in any proceeding and consequently it has become final. The third Respondent, however, made an application before the second Respondent. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, praying for a direction to the appellant to pay him the amount of Gratuity for 26 years of service which he had put in, before the date of termination of his service. Before the second Respondent, the appellant contended that as the third Respondent was dismissed from service after finding him guilty of theft which constituted an offence involving moral turpitude, the Gratuity payable to him stood wholly forfeited in view of Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act. The second Respondent held that as no show cause notice was issued to the third Respondent, the forfeiting of the Gratuity amount was wrong and accordingly allowed the application and directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 6,930/- to the third Respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first Respondent - the Appellate Authority under the Act. The Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft." (Underlined by us) The very fact that the offence of theft means dishonest removal of moveable property belonging to another without his consent shows that it is an offence involving moral turpitude. Therefore, the view taken by the Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 13303 of 19781 to the effect that the offence of theft did not involve moral turpitude was erroneous. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that for imposing penalty on an employee for committing theft of the property of the employer, which constitutes an offence under Section 378 of the I.P.C., it is not necessary that the employee concerned should have been prosecuted and punished for the offence of theft before a competent criminal Court, and further even if an employee had been prosecuted and acquitted in a Court of Law, the employer would be within his right in holding disciplinary proceedings on a charge of theft committed in the course of employment under him and if in the inquiry held in accordance with the rules governing conditions of service and rules of natural justice, the employee is found to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ake the misconduct an offence involving moral turpitude. Suppose a tax payer is found to have dishonestly evaded tax to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- in a particular year and has suffered an order of penalty for such evasion, has be committed any offence involving moral turpitude ? A peon on the last day of his retirement from service, helps himself to certain items of stationery from his master's locker. He has committed an act of dishonesty or theft, but does it amount to an offence involving moral turpitude so as to deny him the gratuity that he had earned over 30 years blemisbless service. In my view, certainly not. The offence of theft or an offence of adultery may be a heinous offence in some countries under their personal laws and persons guilty of such offences would either maimed for life orstoned to death or beheaded. But in our jurisprudence, where justice is tempered with mercy these are treated as not serious offences against the society. It is well settled that an occasional or chance lapse from a chaste life or path of rectitude does not amount to adulterous conduct and does not disentitle the wife from claiming maintenance (See. Section 125 of the Cr. P.C.) Further, under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the tenure of an employee, must be an offence under the law, and (ii) The misconduct which is an offence under the law must involve moral turpitude. Both these conditions exist in the present case. Hence, the appellant was right in taking the view that the Gratuity payable to the third respondent stood wholly forfeited in view of Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act. 12. Sri B. V. Acharya, Learned Counsel, submitted that the appellant might pay a portion of Gratuity to respondent No. 3 on purely compassionate grounds. We asked the Learned Counsel for the appellant, to consider the said submission with sympathy. Learned Counsel after taking time, submitted that the appellant was agreeable to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to respondent No. 3 on compassionate grounds and in deference to the submission made by Sri B.V. Acharya and the suggestion made by the Court. We make it clear that the above submission cannot be regarded as admission of any liability to pay in this case or any other case. 13. We place on record our appreciation to the free legal aid given by Sri B.V. Acharya to the poor Respondent No. 3. 14. Before concluding, it is necessary to observe that though complying with rule....