Release Under Probation Does Not Entitle An Employee To Claim A Right To Continue In Service: Supreme Court [Read Judgment]

Bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice M. R. Shah relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Punjab National Bank, (2010) 8 SCC 573 wherein court had held to the same effect.

Brief Facts

P. Soupramaniane was working as a Messenger in the State Bank of India at Puducherry and was discharged from service on account of conviction of an offence involving "moral turpitude". Trial Court had convicted him of offence under Section 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to imprisonment for a period of three months. The Conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Court.

The Appellate Court had, however, released him on probation as it was of the opinion that he was a fit person to be dealt with under Section 360 CrPC. One of the reasons given by the Appellate Court to release him on probation was that he was employed as a Messenger in a Bank and any sentence of imprisonment would affect his career.

Soupramaniane had appeal against the order of discharge which was dismissed and then he filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Madras which was dismissed by a Single Judge. Aggrieved thereby, he filed a Writ Appeal which was allowed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The order of his discharge from service was set aside and the Bank was directed to reinstate him with the direction of payment of 1/4th of the salary from the date of discharge till the date of reinstatement as back wages.

Bank filed SLP in Supreme Court and notice was issued by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition and the judgment of the High Court was stayed. Thereafter, leave was granted on and the interim order was made absolute.

All Cases of Assault or Simple Hurt Not Necessarily Cases Involving Moral Turpitude

Since the discharge of Soupramaniane from service was on the basis of conviction for an offence involving "moral turpitude" as the order from employer read, Supreme Court considered the question as to what would and what would not amount to "moral turpitude".

Pertinently, Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 provides that conviction by a criminal court of an offence involving moral turpitude shall disentitle a person from continuing in employment of a banking company. Court examined whether Section 10 (1)(b)(i) of Banking Regulation Act is applicable to the facts of the case and whether the conviction of the employee in present case under Section 324 IPC can be said to be for an offence involving moral turpitude.

After analysis Court held that it is very difficult to state that every assault is not an offence involving moral turpitude. The court differentiated simple assault from an aggravated one and held that "all cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorized as crimes involving moral turpitude." It said that, on the other hand, the use of a dangerous weapon which can cause the death of the victim may result in an offence involving moral turpitude. Considering overall facts, the court opined that the crime committed in the present case does not involve moral turpitude. It affirmed the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the appeal accordingly.

Tests for Determination of Cases Involving Moral Turpitude

Court reaffirmed the tests laid down by Allahabad Court in Mangli v. Chakki Lal, AIR 1963 ALL 527 for determining whether a case involves moral turpitude or not and the tests are as follows:

a) Whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the moral conscience or society in general;

b) Whether the motive which led to the act was a base one, and

c) Whether on account of the act having been committed the perpetrators could be considered to be of a depraved character or a person who was to be looked down upon by society.

Read the Judgment Here