TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1057
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Electricity Board, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs. 5000/-. The said judgment of the JMIC was challenged before the Sessions Court and the appeal was dismissed. CWP No. 26051 of 2014 2 However, the period of sentence was reduced from one year to six months. On his conviction, the petitioner was removed from service by the respondent-Corporation on 19.5.2005. Against the order of the Sessions Court, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision No. 1933 of 2004 before this Court and the conviction was stayed. After conviction was stayed by thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....holding of an inquiry while taking into consideration any penalty imposed on an employee on the ground of conviction which led to his conviction of a criminal charge. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Act. The dispute was of private nature not emanating from the work and conduct of the petitioner with the department concerned. The offence at best, though has a criminal colour to it, would be an offence arising out of criminal dealings and cannot be held to be an offence involving moral turpitude. In C. Saseendran Nair Versus General Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Thiruvanarthapuran 1996 Cri. L.J. 4289, the K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otherwise, this Court is of the opinion that without regular inquiry being conducted in the matter as prescribed under the rules, a regular employee could not have been terminated summarily. Rule 14 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employee Punishment and Appeals Rules invoked by the respondents to dispense with holding of a regular inquiry would not come to the rescue of the respondents. A reading of the said rule would show that there has to be satisfaction recorded by the punishing authority giving adequate and cogent reason as to why it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry under the regulations and how the interest or the security of the State would be jeopardized in case an inquiry is to be held. The satisfaction has t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the inquiry need not, therefore find a place in the final order. It would be usual to record the reason separately and then consider the question of the penalty to be imposed and pass the order imposing the penalty. It would, however, be better to record the reason in the final order in order to avoid the allegation that the reason was not recorded in writing before passing the final order but was subsequently fabricated. The reason for dispensing with the inquiry need not contain detailed particulars, but the reason must not be vague or just a repetition of the language of clause (b) of the second proviso. For instance, it would be no compliance with the requirement of clause (b) for the disciplinary authority simply to state that he was ....