ALLAHABAD BANK AND ANR. versus DEEPAK KUMAR BHOLA

ALLAHABAD BANK AND ANR.

DEEPAK KUMAR BHOLA

MARCH 13, 1997

[J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]

Seivice law-Suspension-Employee alleged to have committed forge1y and wrongfully withdrawing money from the Bank-CBI conducted investiga-tion resulting in filing of charge sheet-Offence involving moral tur-pitude-Hence suspension of bank employee, for whose prosecution for such an offence management had accorded sanction, held valid-Mere fact of JO years having elapsed was no ground for allowing him to come back to sensitive post unless he is exonerated-Allahabad Bank First Bipartite Settle-ment, 1966, Cls 19.3 and 19.2

The respondent was working as clerk-cum-typist in Bank. CBI had conducted investigation and submitted its report, whereupon the Superin-tendent of Police called upon the appellant Bank to accord sanction for prosecution of the respondent and one other person A, inter alia for criminal misconduct and cheating. Appellant. Bank accordingly, accorded sanction for the prosecution and also passed an order suspension of the respondent on 23-9-1987 as per .clause 19.3(a) of the First Bipartite Settle· ment 1966 between the management and the Union. Pursuant to the sanction CBI filed the charge sheet against the respondent in the trial court.

The responden~, thereupon, filed writ petition challenging the order of suspension. The High Court by its impugned judgment quashed the order of suspension on the ground that the mere fact that person had entered into criminal conspiracy, it could not be regarded that an offence involving "moral turpitude" had been committed and therefore, the appellant had no jurisdiction to pass the order of suspension. Hence, this appeal by way of special leave.

Appellant Bank contended that the respondent had committed an offence involving moral turpitude, and therefore, the appellant had juris-diction to suspend the respondent. The respondent on the other hand contended that in view of the fact and circumstances, when nearly 10 years 1055

have elapsed this Court should not interfere.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. An offence involving "moral turpitude" must depend upon the facts of each case. However, one of the most serious offences involving "mor.tl turpitude" would be where person employed in banking com-pany dealing with money of the General public, commits forgery and wrongfully withdraws money which h~ is not entitled to withdraw. (1060-G]

Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, [1996] 4 SCC 17 = [1996) SCC

(Cri) 583 and Baleshwar Singh v. Distt. Magistrate and Collector, AIR (1959) All 71, relied upon.

2. lf.th~ alfugations made against the respondent are proved, it will clearly show that he had committed an offence of moral turpitude and, therefore, ..... ...-the appellant had jurisdiction to suspend him under clause 19.3 of the First Bipartite Settlement, 1966. The very fact that the investigation , was conducted by CBI which resulted in filing of charge sheet was suffi-cient for the appellant to conclude that pending prosecution the respon-dent should be suspended. Allowing such an employee to remain in the seat would result in giving him further opportunity to indulge in the act for which he was being prosecuted. It was the bounden duty of the appel-lant to have taken recourse to the provision of Clause 19. 3 of the First Bipartite Settlement, 1966. The mere fact that nearly 10 years have elapsed since the charge-sheet was filed, can also be no ground for allowing the respondent to come back to duty on sensitive post in the Bank, unless he is exonerated of the charge. (1061-F, 1062-C-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9216 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.91 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 6118 of 1988.

S.K. Mehta and Dhruv Mehta for the Appellants.

R.K. Jain and S.R. Setia for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KIRPAL, J. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and quashed an order of suspension which had been passed pending prosecution launched against him. Briefly stated the facts are that during the year 1984-85, the respondent was working as Clerk-cum-typist in Al-lahabad Bank with one of its branch at Lucknow. An investigation was conducted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment and case was registered on 29.8.1986. The C.B.I./S.P.E., Lucknow, after investigation, submitted report whereupon the superintendent of Police wrote letter dated 18.9.1987 to the appellant bank for according sanction for prosecu-tion of the respondent and one other person namely Ajay Bhatia illter alia for criminal mis-conduct and cheating.

On the receipt of the aforesaid letter the appellant took steps to accord sa~ction to prosecute the respondent. It also decided to take action under clause 19.3 (a) of the First Bipartite Settlement. 1966 between the management and the Union and to suspend the responCi~ai.~~gordingly, the suspension order dated 23.9.1987 was passed which reads as under:

"Since it is revealed that you while functioning as clerk-cum-typist in Allahabad Bank, Aalam Bagh, Lucknow during the year 1984-85 entered into criminal conspiracy with Shri Ajai Bhatia, Clerk-cum-Cashier under suspension. Shri H.R. Gurnani Advo-E cate, Lucknow and some unknown persons with the common object to commit the offences of criminal misconduct and cheating by adopting corrupt and illegal means or otherwise abusing your position by obtaining undue pecuniary gain for yourself and/or others and since steps to get you prosecuted have been taken, you are hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect under clause 19.3 (a) of the First Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 pending prosecution proceedings against you.

During suspension period you will be paid subsistence al-lowance as per rules. You will also not leave station without prior permission of the competent authority during ·suspension period.

Your are also required to submit in writing your local postal address where you want to be communicated hereafter."

Pursuant to the sanction of the prosecution, charge sheet dated

(1997) 2 S.C.R. "f

29.9.1987 was filed in the court against the respondent. Thereupon, the court issued summons on 26.11.1987 to the respondent. After few months, the respondent filed writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the afor~ . .id order of suspension. By the impugned judgment. dated 23.4.1991 the High Court came· to the conclusion that by the mere fact that person had entered into the criminal conspiracy, it could not be regarded that an offence involving "moral turpitude" had been committed and, therefore, the appellant had no jurisdiction to pass the order of suspension. The High Court, accordingly, quashed the suspension order and directed the payment of full salary and allowances to the respondent. This appeal arises as consequent to special leave having been granted to the appellant.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent had committed an offence involving moral turpitude and, therefore, the appellant had the jurisdiction to suspend the respondent. The submission of Mr. R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondent, however was that on the facts and circumstances of the case when nearly 10 years have elapsed, this Court should not interfere. It was further submitted that there had been no application of mind by the bank to the passing of the suspension order and the High Court was. conse-quently, right in quashing the order of suspension.

The charge sheet, which was filed, specifies the acts of commission · and omissions which were alleged to have been committed by the respon-dent and others. The acts as specified by the charge-sheet are as follows :

"Shri Ajai Bhatia, while functioning as Clerk-cum- Cashier Allahabad Bank, Alam Bagh Branch, Lucknow during the year 1984-85 had shown the issue of cheque books bearing SI. No. 7771 to 7780 against account No. 2618 in the name of Shri Gajraj Sharma, and he made the endorsement in the cheque issue register against this entry. Shri Deepak Kumar Bhola signed as Rajendra for having received the said cheque book on behalf of Ne holder, the ledgers of S.B. Ale Nos. 2284 belonging lo Sri Lekha Ram. SB/Ale NO. 1103 belonging to Sri Shanti Parkash and Smt. Prem Lata, show that the cheque book containing cheque Nos. 7631, 7640, 7581 to 7590 and 7551-7560 respectively were issued to these Ale holders when actually none of these account holders had ever

applied for any cheque book nor actually cheque hook was issued to any of these persons and fictitious entries were made in the ledger account.

The cheque No. 7631 amounting to Rs. 9560.62 paisa and cheque No. 7632 for Rs. 7532.00 was purportedly to have been issued by genuine account holder Lekha Ram of Account Holder of Ne No. 2484. Another cheque No. 7551 amounting to Rs. 1400.00 cheque No. 7552 amounting to Rs. 14,800.00 purportedly have been issued by Sri Shanti Prakash Ne holder of account No. 1103 and cheque No. 07775 for Rs. 12800.51 purported to have been issued by Sri Gajraj Sharma account holder of Ne No. 2618 were presented in the Corporation Bank, Quiaser Bagh Lucknow by Sri Deepak Kumar Bhola aforesaid who was working as Clerk cum Typist in Allahabad Bank Alam Bagh Branch, Lucknow in the name of Rajendra Rathore. Shri H.R. Gurnani. Advocate, Lucknow had introduced Shri D.K. Bhola as Rajendra Rathore at the time of opening of account and Shri H.R. Gurnani Advocate had his own account No. 87 in the said Corporation Bank, Sri Deepak Bhola, aforesaid submitted five pay in slips for depositing the cheque No. 7551 for Rs. 11400.60, 7552 for R. 14800.00, 7632 for Rs. 7532, 7631 for Rs. 9560 and 7775 for Rs. 12800.51 through five cheque No. 021781 dated 24.4.84 for Rs. 11000.00. 021762 dated 1.9.84 for Rs .. 1500.00 021763 dated 15.8.84 for Rs. 17000.00. 021765 dt. 25.9.84 for Rs. 11000.00, 021762 dated 1.9.84 for Rs. 1500.00, 021763 dated 15.8.84 for Rs. 17000.000, 021765 dated 25.9.84 for Rs. 21900.00 and 021767 dated 25.9.84 for Rs. 203.73 paisa. Said Deepak Kumar Bhola impersonating himself as Rajendra Rathore operated S.B. Ne No. 3206 in Corporation Bank. Quiserbagh Lucknow and withdrew the entire amount. Whereas, the aforesaid account holders Sri Lekharam having A/c No. 2484, Shri Shanti Prakash and Srimati Premlata A/c No. 1103 and Sri Gajraj Sharma Ne No. 2618 never issued these cheques and never availed the cheque facility in operating their respective accounts.

Total sum of Rs. 56.103.77 was withdrawn from said fake account No. 3206 by Sri Deepak Kumar Bhola by issuing five cheques by signing as Rajendra Rathore."

On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the respondent was charged for offences punishable under Sections 120(B)/419/420/467/468/471 I.P.C. and 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

It \\1ll be appropriate to refer clauses 19.2 & 19.3 of the First Bipartite Settlement. under which orders were passed suspending the respondent. These clauses read as follows :

. "19.2. By the e4prcssion"offence" shall he meant any offence involving moral turpitude for which an employee is liable to con-viction and sentence under any provision of law.

19.3(a) When in the opinion of the management an employee has committed an offence, unless he be otherwise prosecuted, the bank may take steps to prosecute him or get him prosecuted, the bank may take steps to prosecuted and in such ease he may also he suspended.

(b) If he is con~Cted, he may be dismissed with effect from the date of his con~ction or be given any lessor form of punishment as mentioned in Clause 19.6 below."

It is evident from the bare perusal of the aforesaid clauses that if in the opinion of the management, an employee has committed an offence, · then the bank may take steps to prosecute him and in such case, he may also be suspended. The word "offence" occurring in clause 19.3 (a) has been defined in clause 19.2 to mean any offence involving "moral turpitude" for which an employee is liable to conviction and sentence under any provision of law.

What is an offence involving "moral turpitude" must depend upon the facts of each case. But whatever may be the meaning which may be given lo the term "moral turpitude" it appears to us that one of the most serious offences involving "moral turpitude" would be where person employed in banking. company dealing with money of the general public, commits forgery and wrongfully withdraws money which he is not entitled to withdraw.

This Court in Pawan Kumar v. State of Hwyana and Another, (1996] 4 sec 17 at page 21 dealt with the question as to what is the meaning of expression "moral turpitude" and it was observed as follows :

"" Moral turpitude" is an expression which is used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or havi~g any connection showing depravity".

This expression has been more elaborately explained in Baleshwar Singh v. Distlict Magistrate Magistrate and Collectm; Banaras, AIR (1959) All. 71 where it was observed as follow :

Distlict Magistrate Magistrate and Collectm; Banaras, AIR (1959) All. 71 where it was

"The expression 'moral turpitude' is not defined anywhere. But it means anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or goods morals. It implies depravity and wickness of character of disposition of the person charged with the particular conduct. . Every false statement made by person may not be moral tur-pitude, but it would be so if it discloses vileness or depravity in the doing of any private and social duty which person owns to his fellowmen ·or to the society in general. If therefore the individual charged with certain conduct owes duty, either to another in- dividual or to the society in general, to act in specific manner or · not to so act and he still acts contrary to it and does so knowingly, his conduct must beheld to be due to vileness and deprivity. It will be contrary to accepted customary rule and duty between man and man.11

In our opinion the aforesaid observations correctly spell out the true meaning of the expression "moral turpitude". Applying the aforesaid test, if the allegations made against the respondent are proved, it will clearly show that he had committed an offence involving moral turpitude and, therefore, the appellant had the juris<li~tion to suspend him under the ' aforesaid clauses 19.3. The High Court observed that there was nothing on record to suggest that the management had formed an opinion objectively on the consideration of all relevant material available against the petitioner that in the circumstances of the case the criminal acts attributed to the petitioner implied deprivity and vileness of character and arc snch as woulµ involve moral turpitude. It did not regard entering into criminal con- spiracy to commit the aforesaid offences as being an offence involving moral turpitude. We one, to say the least, surprised at the conclusion which has been arrived by the Allahabad High Court. There was material. on record before the appellant, in the form of the report of the C.BJ./S.P.E., which clearly indicate the acts of commission and omissions. amounting to

"moral" turpitude" alleged to have been committed by the respondent. Further more the respondent has been charged with various offences allegedly committed while he was working in the bank and punishment for which could extend upto ten year imprisonment (in case the respondent is convicted under Section 467 l.P.C.).

We are unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that there has been no application of mind or the objective -consideration of the facts by the appellant before it passed the orders of suspension. As already observed, the very fact that the investigation was conducted by the C.B.I. which resulted in the filing of charge-sheet, alleging various offences having been committed by the respondent, was sufficient for the appellant to conclude that pending prosecution the respondent should be suspended. It would be indeed inconceivable that bank should allow an employee to continue to remain on duty when he is facing serious charges of corruption and mis-appropriation of money. Allowing such an employee to remain in the seat would result in giving him further opportunity to indulge in the acts for which he was being prosecuted. Under the circumstances, it was the bounden duty of the appellant to have taken recourse to the provisions of clause 19.3 of the First Bipartite Settlement, 1966. The mere fact that nearly 10 years have elapsed since the charge-sheet was filed, can also be no ground for ~!lowing the respondent to come back to duty on sensitive post in the bank, unless he is exonerated of the charge.

In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in quashing the orders for suspension. We accordingly, allow this appeal, set- aside the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court and dismiss the Writ Petition No. 6118/1988 which has been filed by the respondent. There will, however, be no order as to costs:

Appeal allowed.