http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: ALLAHABAD BANK AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DEEPAK KUMAR BHOLA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/03/1997

BENCH: J.S. VERMA, B.N. KIRPAL

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T 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 Allahabad Bank with on  of its  branch at  Lucknow.  An  investigation  was conducted by  the Delhi  Special Police  Establishment and a case  was   registered  on   29.8.1986.  The  C.B.I./S.P.E., Lucknow, after  investigation, submitted  a report whereupon the Superintendent  of Police wrote a letter dated 18.9.1987 to the appellant bank for according sanction for prosecution of the  respondent and  one other  person namely Ajay Bhatia inter alia for criminal mis-conduct and cheating.      On the  receipt of  the aforesaid  letter the appellant took steps  to accord  sanction 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  respondent. Accordingly, 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   a   criminal      conspiracy with  Shri Ajai  Bhatia.      Clerk-Cum-Cashier under suspension.      Shri H.R. Gurnani Advocate, 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

    hereby placed under suspension with      First  Bipartite  Settlement  dated      19.10.1966   pending    proceedings      against you.      During suspension  period you  will      be paid  subsistence  allowance  as      per  rules.  You  will    also  not      leave   station    without    prior      permission   of    the    competent      authority during suspension period.      You 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  29.9.1987 was  filed   in the court against the respondent.  Thereupon,   the  court   issued   summons   on 26.11.1987 to  the respondent  filed a  writ petition in the Allahabad High  Court challenging  the  aforesaid  order  of suspension. By  the impugned  judgment dated  23.4.1991  the High Court came to the conclusion that by the mere fact that a person  had entered into the criminal concpiracy, 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  appal arises  as a  consequent of  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, consequently, right in quashing the order of suspension.      The charge sheet, which was filed, specific the acts of commission commissions  which  were  alleged  to  have  been committed  by   the  respondent  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 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  recieved  the      said cheque  book on  behalf of A/C      holder, the  ledgers  of  S.B.  A/C      Nos. 2284  belonging to  Sri Shanti      Prakash 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  A/C  holders      when  actually   non  e   of  these

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

    account holder  shad  ever  applied      for any  cheque book  nor  actually      cheque book  was issued  to any  of      these person and fictitious entires      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  A/C  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   A/C   holder   of      account No.  1103  and  cheque  No,      07775 for Rs. 12800.51 purported to      have  been   issued  by  Sri  Gajre      Sharma account  holder of  A/C  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  deposing the  cheque no.      7551 for Rs. 11400.60, 7552 for Rs.      14800.00, 7632  for Rs.  7532, 7631      for  Rs.  9560  and  7775  for  Rs.      12800.51 through  five  cheque  No.      021721  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.      17000.00, 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.   A/C  No.  3206  in      Corporation    Bank.     Quiserbagh      Lucknow  and  withdrew  the  entire      amount.  Whereas,   the   aforesaid      account holders Sri Lekharam having      A/C No.  2484, Sri  Shanti  Prakash      and Srimati  Premlata A/c  No. 1103      and Sri  Gajraj Sharma A/c No. 2618      never  issued   these  cheques  and      never availaed  the cheque facility      in   operating   their   respective      accounts.      Total  sum  of  Rs.  56.103.77  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

    withdrawn from  said  fake  account      No. 3206  by Sri Deepak Kumar Bhola      by issueing 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)/429/420/467/468/471  I.P.C. and  5 (2)  read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947.      It will be appropriate for 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   expression   "      offence" shall be meant any offence      involving moral turpitude for which      an employee is liable to conviction      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  prosecute him  or get him      prosecuted, the bank may take steps      to prosecuted and in such a case he      may also be suspended.      (b)  If he  is convicted, he may be      dismissed with effect from the date      of his  conviction or  be given any      lessor  from   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 a 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 an 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 to the term "moral turpitude" it appears  to  us  that  one  of  the  most  serious  offences involving "moral turpitude" would be where a person employed in a  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 VS.  STATE OF  HARYANA  AND ANOTHER. (1996)  4 SCC 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      having   any   connection   showing      depravity".      This expression  has been more elaborately explained in BALESHWAR  SINGH  vs.  DISTRICT  MAGISTRATE  AND  COLLECTOR. BANARAS, AIR 1959 All. 71 where it was observed as follows:      "The expression  "moral  turpitude’      is not  defined  anywhere.  But  it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

    means  anything  done  contrary  to      justice, honesty,  modesty or  good      morals. It  implies  depravity  and      wickness    of     character     or      disposition of  the person  charged      with the  particular conduct. Every      false statement  made by  a  person      may not  be moral turpitude, but it      would  be   so  if   it   discloses      vileness or  depravity in the doing      of  any  private  and  social  duty      which  a   person   owes   to   his      fellowmen  or  to  the  society  in      general.    If     therefore    the      individual charged  with a  certain      conduct  owes  a  duty,  either  to      another  individual   or   to   the      society in  general, to  act  in  a      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"      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  jurisdiction  to suspend him  under the aforesaid clause 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 depravity and vileness  of character  and are  such as   would involve moral turpitude.  It did not regard entering into a criminal conspiracy 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 an received before the  appellant,   in  the   form  of   the  report   of  the C.B.I./S.P.E.,  which   clearly  indicated   the   acts   of commission and  commissions, 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   years imprisonment (in  case the  respondent  is  convicted  under Section I.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 a  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  a  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

a 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 allowing the  respondent to come back to duty on a 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 of  suspension. We,  accordingly, allow this apeal,  set-aside the impugned judgment t the Allahabad High Court and dismiss the Writ Petition No. 6118/1988 which had been filed by the respondent. There will, however, be no order as to costs.