http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: J. JAISHANKAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       14/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   483        1996 SCALE  (6)186

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This special  leave petition  arises from  the judgment and order  of the  Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court made  on March 4, 1996 in W.A. No.111/96. The admitted position is  that petitioner  was convicted  for an  offence under Section  509, IPC  and sentenced  to  pay  a  fine  of Rs.200/-. The  conviction and  sentence  had  become  final. Subsequently, the  petitioner sought  for a  reference under Section 10  of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, the "Act"]  for adjudication  of his dismissal from service. The Central  Government had  refused to  refer the  dispute. Consequently, he  filed the writ petition in the High Court. The learned  single Judge  by judgment  dated September  19. 1995 allowed  the writ  petition and  directed  the  Central Government to  make a  reference to  the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication  whether his  dismissal from service was in accordance with  law. On appeal, the Division Bench modified the order  of the  learned single  judge and on the basis of the  concession  made  by  the  counsel  appearing  for  the respondent,  the   order  of   dismissal  from  service  was converted  into   discharge  from  service  without  retiral benefits.  However,   the  Division   Bench   directed   the respondent to  pay him  the gratuity  which  is  payable  in accordance with  the rules.  Calling that order in question, this SLP has been filed.      Shri  L.   Nageswara  Rao,   learned  counsel  for  the petitioner, has contended that under Rule 10(1)(b)(i) of the Act, no employee of a banking company who is, or at any time has been  convicted  by  a  criminal  court  of  an  offence involving moral  turpitude, shall  be appointed.  He  placed reliance on  paragraphs 14  and 15  of the  judgment of this Court in  Pawan Kumar  vs. State  of Haryana [(1996) 4 SCALE 480 at  484] and  contended that  when an offence leading to conviction  and  sentence  of  a  fine  upto  Rs.2000/-  was involved, the  necessary recommendation  came to  be made to the Parliament  to step in and amend the law so as to remove

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

the embargo  for appointment in future period. Therefore, in the light  of the  above judgment  and the  law laid down by this Court,  the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law. We find no force in the contention.      In view of the admitted position that the conviction of the petitioner  for an  offence under  Section 509,  IPC had attained finality,  it undoubtedly  involves moral turpitude as it  is impermissible  for such an employee to continue in service. When a Government servant is dismissed from service on conviction by a criminal Court involving moral turpitude, it automatically  leads to  removal  from  service,  without further enquiry.  Can a  worker be  put at a higher pedestal than as  the Government servant? The obvious answer is ’No’. In view  of  the  conviction  for  moral  turpitude  of  the petitioner and  due  to  conviction  for  an  offence  under Section 509  IPC, the  order of dismissal was rightly passed The  recommendation  made  by  this  Court  was  made  after noticing  the   trivial  offences   like  traffic  offences, municipal offences  and other  petty offences  under the IPC which do not involve moral turpitude. This Court recommended to the  Parliament to  step in and make necessary alteration in law  so that  consequence of  the conviction and sentence would suitably  be modulated  and mitigated  in the light of the judgment.  That ratio  is clearly  inapplicable  to  the facts of  this  case.  As  a  fact,  on  the  basis  of  the concession made  by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Division  Bench of  the High Court modified the order of dismissal  to   one  of   discharge  from   service  without consequential retiral  benefits but with payment of gratuity in  accordance  with  law.  The  learned  single  Judge  was obviously in  error in directing reference to the Industrial Tribunal.  We   do  not,   therefore,  find  any  illegality warranting interference.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.