Rajwinder Kaur And ANR v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation And ANR
!! ! !
"# $ %" $ &! " $ Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced?
Yes
!"#"$%
''
( )( % *! ''
+, )( % *!
& ' ( -!! !*(%
* *. /+ %* * mandamus %+! !!!0 %1!
* ** / / ! ! 2) ! 3 1 *4 +* 5(67 3% 1! 3 1 *1 %
5(67 % ! 1 3!* * % * %1!
!!1*!0 %( 3) ! 3 **% !0
* 8!
)
-
* ! 0 1 3 9 1!
+ 5 *:% ;7 + 1! 3*!! ) /+ ! * / - % * % ! $< $ %%*% %
% =*0+
.1(%)==5 *:0.(%;7 (++ 3 1)% * !! % 3 ( >+)2?! +1 5(6 7) + %4 -% * % /+% * $< $ + ( !* 1) % +1 # #5(6<7% ! 3 !! 5(6$7-!! 1 * * )% ++ 1&* 3)% !
3 $
@ ) * ! ! 0 % * %1!
!!1@%)!!
A % *!% % 36 %1 % )1
3 @ )% * /+ 3 % 1 ! )% % + * % !* 1 30 )* % ) !! %!! * * *
%+1*%1!
!!1) % / - 1+ +1 =
(<
!* 3!! !%*% 3 % %
! %1!
1 % 3 1 A % !
% % +1 3 % *Tarsem Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2020(3) PLR
26. 2)% %1 %1!
% =*0+
.1(%)==5 *:0.(%;7) 31 *113 31* % 3 1*1 % $< $5(6 7 %* ' )Jagroop Singh vs. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others 2017(2) LAR 251 Om Pal vs. State of Haryana and others 2015(26) SCT 231 !4
* %4*! )! 1 1 **% +1 !. .* %) !! % *1+1 *1 % $< $5(6 7(%) %% * ! !
1!+ ) 1+1* %1 < Per contra, % *! + ! !! %% -% 6 %1 % ) ) 3 %1!
% =)0.(% % %-% 1 *1 % 5(67
%%*%% %)% %% 3!- .% $== 3 9!
1 * ) B 1 *
!! 1 % *1 % *% % %1 % 2)
* !0 %*%1!
!!1
% 1*1 % 3 *- ! + % +1!+ 5(67 % + 31 * !!A % * 1 1* +1 = * )! 3
*!
3*1 **1 $< $ * 1 * !! + %% %
=( 1*
)#) C !0$ < + 1 D+1 *% % **% + 1 !) + * % % 1)+ 3% % !
% +1
9 ,%*Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana 1994(4) SCT 75 ,% Anil Sandhir vs. State of Punjab and another 2013(3) SCT 60.
+
$ @ + % *!
*!+ %
%) ! % / !! / 9+ %)
%1 %1!
% =0.(%D+% % )% 1*1 % $< $ 5(6 7 + % %*% * **% % 1 !@ ) 1 3) %4 %, 1 3) !! 3 % + + % % =0.(% % % +1 # #)% ! 3 !! % +1
,
=E )**% +1 % *! % ! 13*1 %4 % * 31 *1 % 1 * ( ! + % % * * F ) *% % !
3+!%3 0
3)% !* % + 1
$< $5(6 7% %*
+1 # #5(6<7) *1 *% *1 % % %
% = 0. (%) % % (%%+ 3) !! % % !
3
1 * - !! !* 3 !!
+ 1 +1 = =5(6$7 3 (!! )% +1 % !! +0 * * +1 = * ) %% 3 4 6 1%%*1! 3 % % * !+ %.
%*%*+ * %4 )% !! 1 # (! *1!+ 5(67 % % % %3 %1!
% =)0.(% %3 *1!1 **
C +1 # #-% % ! !! % +1
=-.% $== *1! 3% %* **% 1
*1 % + * !! !* 3 1 ( % *% < 39!
1* ) B 1*
*131 % %1! 3
- !
* 1!% "
"2.
...Earlier Department of Personnel, Government of Punjab vide its letter No. 3/23/1998(1PP2/10394 dated 05.08.1998 circulated an order in compliance with decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2992/1995 titled as The Deputy Director of Collegiate Education vs. S. Nagoor Meera 1995 AIR 1364 wherein it was held that employees convicted of a serious charge are not to be retained in service. It was further held that mere suspension of sentence will be of no use to the employees, unless the conviction itself was stayed or set aside. It would be relevant to examine the conduct of the Government servant which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. if the employee is held guilty and convicted of a serious charge, then such an employee should not be retained in service. 3.
The instructions and service rules contemplate that employees convicted of serious offences particularly offences involving moral turpitude are not to be retained in service and such employees are either to be dismissed or removed from service. The term 'moral turpitude' has not been defined in the rules or anywhere else and it may convey different meaning in different contexts, but it has generally been taken to mean a conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. As a general rule, a crime will be considered as involving moral turpitude if it involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity when judged in the light of the social duties which a man owes to his fellow man or to society in general. If the actual commission of an offense involves moral turpitude, then an attempt to commit the offence, or a conspiracy to commit the offense, will likewise involve moral turpitude."
51! 7 = .* %)% 9% *% A+ ) ***% +1 ! % % *% < - % % %***% * ! (%) ==) 0 %% 9+ 3%!% %(%)=$) *'3A +(%)
)%* *1 6 D**%(%) ).11
- **%5 7(%)$)
- * + (%)
-
).11+ (%)= )(1(%)$ % ! * . )= 6 ) * **%% % 1 *1 %)% **1-**%0.(%%
3 4 **%
!%*%* ! *! :1 !);
>+ %* @;
!1 State Bank of India and others vs. P. Soupramaniae (2019) 18 SCC 135%1 +* ! /++>%A0 +
) * "
"7. 'Moral Turpitude' as defined in the Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) is as follows:
"The Act of baseness, vileness, or the depravity in the private and social duties which man owes to his follow man, or to society in general, contrary to accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man."
"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"
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."
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. 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 facts [Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar]
. Bhola and the circumstances [Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1996(3) S.C.T 339 : (1996) 4 SCC 17] of the case. Ordinarily, the tests that can be applied for judging an offence involving moral turpitude are:
[10] Sushil Kumar Singhal (supra) 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 the society. [Mangali v. Chakki Lal, AIR 1963 Allahabad 527] 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. [Jorabhai Hirabhai Rabari v. District Development Officer, Mehsana, AIR 1996 Gujarat] .
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 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."
2) ,%*@;
!1 Union of India vs. Tulsi Ram Patel(1985) 3 SCC 398 * %1 * % % * 1! 3 %1 / + *
%! 3 3)16 1% + % * %* % *%+* 3! 3 . % +% % % * % !
1 % +
1! 3 ! /++>%9'
)* + "
"127. Not much remains to be said about clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2). To recapitulate briefly, where a disciplinary authority comes to know that a Government servant has been convicted on a criminal charge, it must consider whether his conduct which has led to his conviction was such as warrants the imposition of a penalty and, if so, what that penalty should be. For that purpose it will have to peruse the judgment of the criminal court and consider all the facts and circumstances of the case and the various factors set out in Challappan's case. This, however, has to be done by it ex parte and by itself.
Once the disciplinary authority reaches the conclusion that the Government servant's conduct was such as to require his dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank he must decide which of these three penalties should be imposed on him. This too it has to do by itself and without hearing the concerned Government servant by reason of the exclusionary effect of the second proviso. The disciplinary authority must, however, bear in mind that a conviction on a criminal charge does not automatically entail dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of the concerned Government servant. Having decided which of these three penalties is required to be imposed, he has to pass the requisite order.
A Government servant who is aggrieved by the penalty imposed can agitate in appeal, revision or review, as the case may be, that the penalty was too severe or excessive and not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. If it is his case that he is not the Government servant who has been in fact convicted, he can also agitate this question in appeal, revision or review. If he fails in all the departmental remedies and still wants to pursue the matter, he can invoke the court's power of judicial review subject to the court permitting it. If the court finds that he was not in fact the person convicted, it will strike down the impugned order and order him to be reinstated in service.
Where the court finds that the penalty imposed by the impugned order is arbitrary or grossly excessive or out of all proportion to the offence committed or not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case or the requirements of that particular Government service the court will also strike down the impugned order. Thus, in Shankar Dass v. Union of India and another, 1985(2) RCR (Criminal) 117 : [1985] 2 S.C.C. 358 , this Court set aside the impugned order of penalty on the ground that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the appellant was whimsical and ordered his reinstatement in service with full back wages. It is, however, not necessary that the Court should always order reinstatement. The Court can instead substitute a penalty which in its opinion would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case." 51!
(* 1 * ++ 3%%) % <57* 31*B 3(%)#+ - 1 !% "
"(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub(section (1),(( (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, willful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused;
(b) the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited@@ (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act violence on his part, or (ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment."
51! 7 -% 1! 3)!% ) + 3
% 1+% % % =)0.(% @ )% *! %44 % %1 %1!
* + % 31
**% % !
%31 / * + *1 *% * !! (%)1 !% % (%)1* +1 3 9 ,%* '
@+L. Manjula vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2015(27) SCT
840) !! 3+ + 3 % 1! + *%
. *%
)*
*
% +? 1 +* %4)
! % !
%3) **% +1 !(%%+ 3) !! * +1"
- 5(67
34 -% 1 % $
-!! 1 %
*)% ++ 3 % 1) %% % * )!0)
%
!! %
% - 1 +
)#) C 3 !0$ < 2) * 8 ! !
** 1)*1 ** +*!!
% !
31 -!! *%%% * !0 *%1!
!!1% 31*
!! %
! %3 1* *% 1! 3 '
(
, P.C.
! /+C "
GC0 !
"
GC0