Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No . 7011 of2009
The State Bank of India & Others. .... Appellants
Versus
P. Soupramaniane …. Respondent
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. The Respondent who was working as a Messenger in
the State Bank of India at Puducherry was discharged from
service by an order dated 15.05.1986. The appeal filed by
the Respondent against the order of discharge was
dismissed on 03.07.1986. Later, the Staff Union took up
the cause of the Respondent and made a representation
on his behalf which was also rejected on 04.05.1992.
Challenging the aforementioned orders, the Respondent
filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at
Madras which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on
07.06.2000. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent filed
a Writ Appeal which was allowed by the Division Bench of
the Madras High Court. The order of discharge of the
Respondent from service was set aside and the Appellants
were directed to reinstate the Respondent. The Appellants
were directed to pay 1/4th of the salary from the date of
discharge till the date of reinstatement as back wages.
Notice was issued by this Court in Special Leave Petition
filed by the Appellants on 01.09.2009 and the judgment of
the High Court was stayed. Thereafter, leave was granted
on 19.10.2009 and the interim order was made absolute.
We are informed that the Respondent has attained the age
of superannuation on 31.12.2012.
2. Since the discharge of the Respondent from service is
on the basis of conviction for an offence involving moral
turpitude, it is necessary to refer to the facts of the
criminal case. A report was submitted by the Station
House Officer (SHO), Grand Bazaar Police Station,
Puducherry that on 17.06.1983 at 9.00 hours the
Respondent voluntarily stabbed Karthiban s/o
Dharamssivam and Sivagurunathan s/o Brame Dhanabal
with a broken soda bottle. On completion of investigation,
charge sheet was filed against the Respondent.
Thereafter, charge was framed under Section 307 IPC.
After appreciation of the evidence on-record, the trial
court found that the Respondent had no intention to cause
murder of the victims who were examined as PWs-1 and 2.
The injuries were certified as simple by PW-5. The trial
court was of the opinion that there was no material to
convict the Respondent under Section 307 IPC. However,
the trial court convicted the Respondent under Section 324
IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for three
months. The motive for the crime was an earlier dispute
between two groups belonging to different political parties.
The conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Court. The
Appellate Court released the Respondent on probation as it
was of the opinion that the Respondent was a fit person to
be dealt with under Section 360 CrPC. One of the reasons
given by the Appellate Court to release the Respondent on
probation was that the Respondent was employed as a
Messenger in a Bank and any sentence of imprisonment
would affect his career.
3. As stated earlier, discharge of the Respondent from
service was on the ground of his conviction by a criminal
court for an offence involving moral turpitude.
4. 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.
The Writ Appeal filed by the Respondent was allowed by a
Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that the
criminal court released the Respondent under probation in
exercise of its power under Section 360 CrPC to enable the
Respondent to continue in service. The High Court was of
the opinion that the purpose of the order of the criminal
court would be defeated if the Respondent is discharged
from service. Another reason given by the High Court is
that the provision of law under which the bank discharged
the Respondent from service was not mentioned and no
reasons were assigned by the bank in the order of
discharge.
5. We do not agree with the reasons given by the High
Court for setting aside the order of discharge and directing
the reinstatement of the Respondent in service. A showcause notice was issued to the Respondent in which it was
categorically mentioned that the Respondent cannot
continue in service after his conviction in a criminal case
involving moral turpitude in view of Section 10(1)(b)(i) of
the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. After considering the
explanation of the Respondent, an order of discharge was
passed. The High Court is not right in holding that no
reasons had been given by the bank for discontinuing the
Respondent from service. The High Court committed an
error in holding that the order of discharge should be set
aside on the ground that the provision of law under which
the Respondent was discharged was not mentioned in the
order. Yet another reason given by the High Court for
interference with the order of discharge is that the criminal
court released the Respondent on probation only to permit
him to continue in service. The release under probation
does not entitle an employee to claim a right to continue in
service. In fact the employer is under an obligation to
discontinue the services of an employee convicted of an
offence involving moral turpitude.1
The observations made
by a criminal court are not binding2
on the employer who
has the liberty of dealing with his employees suitably.
6. Though we do not agree with the reasons given by
the High Court for setting aside the order of discharge of
the Respondent from service, it is necessary to examine
whether Section 10 (1)(b)(i) of Banking Regulation Act is
applicable to the facts of the case. Conviction for an
offence involving moral turpitude disqualifies a person
from continuing in service in a bank. The conundrum that
arises in this case is whether the conviction of the
Respondent under Section 324 IPC can be said to be for an
offence involving moral turpitude.
7. Moral Turpitude’ as defined in the Black’s Law
Dictionary (6
th
ed.) is as follows:
“The Act of baseness, vileness, or the depravity in
the private and social duties which man owes to
1 Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Punjab National Bank, (2010) 8 SCC 573
2 This Court has observed on multiple occasions that in criminal jurisdiction,
Courts do not have the power to pass a direction that the said conviction will not
have any impact on the convict’s services. See: Girraj Prasad Meena v. State of
Rajasthan (2014) 13 SCC 674
his follow man, or to society in general, contrary
to accepted and customary rule of right and duty
between man and man.”
3
“implies something immoral in itself regardless of
it being punishable by law”; “restricted to the
gravest offences, consisting of felonies, infamous
crimes, and those that are malum in se and
disclose a depraved mind.”
4
According to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, ‘Moral
Turpitude’ is :
“An act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the
private and social duties which a man owes to his
fellow men or to society in general, contrary to the
accepted and customary rule of right and duty
between man and man.”
Burton Legal Thesaurus defines ‘Moral Turpitude’
as :
“Bad faith, bad repute, corruption, defilement,
delinquency, discredit, dishonor, shame, guilt,
knavery, misdoing, perversion, shame, ice,
wrong.”
3 p. 1008
4 p. 1517
8. There is no doubt that there is an obligation on the
Management of the Bank to discontinue the services of an
employee who has been convicted by a criminal court for
an offence involving moral turpitude.5
Though every
offence is a crime against the society, discontinuance from
service according to the Banking Regulation Act can be
only for committing an offence involving moral turpitude.
Acts which disclose depravity and wickedness of character
can be categorized as offences involving moral turpitude.
Whether an offence involves moral turpitude or not
depends upon the facts6
and the circumstances7
of the
case. Ordinarily, the tests that can be applied for judging
an offence involving moral turpitude are:
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
5 Sushil Kumar Singhal (supra)
6 Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola
7 Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1996) 4 SCC 17 ¶12
to be of a depraved character or a person who
was to be looked down upon by the society.
8
The other important factors that are to be kept in
mind to conclude that an offence involves moral turpitude
are :– the person who commits the offence; the person
against whom it is committed; the manner and
circumstances in which it is alleged to have been
committed; and the values of the society.9
According to
the National Incident – Based Reporting System (NIBRS), a
crime data collection system used in the United States of
America, each offence belongs to one of the three
categories which are: crimes against persons, crimes
against property, and crimes against society. Crimes
against persons include murder, rape, and assault where
the victims are always individuals. The object of
crimes against property, for example, robbery and burglary
is to obtain money, property, or some other benefits.
Crimes against society for example gambling, prostitution,
and drug violations, represent society’s prohibition against
engaging in certain types of activities. Conviction of any
8 Mangali v. Chakki Lal, AIR 1963 ALL 527
9 Jorabhai Hirabhai Rabari v. District Development Officer, Mehsana, AIR 1996 Guj
3.
alien of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for
deportation under the Immigration Law in the United
States of America. To qualify as a crime involving moral
turpitude for such purpose, it requires both reprehensible
conduct and scienter, whether with specific intent,
deliberateness, willfulness or recklessness.10
9. There can be no manner of doubt about certain
offences which can straightaway be termed as involving
moral turpitude e.g. offences under the Prevention of
Corruption of Act, NDPS Act, etc. The question that arises
for our consideration in this case is whether an offence
involving bodily injury can be categorized as a crime
involving moral turpitude. In this case, we are concerned
with an assault. It is very difficult to state that every
assault is not an offence involving moral turpitude.
A simple assault is different from an aggravated assault. All
cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorized as crimes
involving moral turpitude. On the other hand, the use of a
dangerous weapon which can cause the death of the victim
may may result in an offence involving moral turpitude. In the
instant case, there was no motive for the Respondent to cause
10 Cristoval Silva – Trevina 241 & N Dec 687 (AG 2008)
the death of the victims. The criminal courts below found that
the injuries caused to the victims were simple in nature. On an
overall consideration of the facts of this case, we are of the
opinion that the crime committed by the Respondent does not
involve moral turpitude. As the Respondent is not guilty of an
offence involving moral turpitude, he is not liable to be
discharged from service.
10. For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the judgment
of the High Court. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
.................................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
..................................J.
[M.R.SHAH]
New Delhi,
April 26, 2019.
