Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 15: Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice M M Kumar and Justice Hasnain Massodi has upheld the Single Judge order whereby termination of an employee of State Bank of India ordered 26 years ago was quashed.
According to the facts of the case, Chanchal Singh, son of Janak Singh of Channi Rama was working as peon in the State Bank of India. He was convicted under Section 380 RPC and ordered to pay a fine of Rs 200 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kargil on November 11, 1987. However, sentence of four years awarded by the CJM was suspended releasing him on probation on the ground that the Chanchal Singh was first offender, 21 years old and large family of minor children to support.
The most important observation made by the CJM was that the offense was committed in an emotion of friendliness and on that basis the accused was not called upon to serve the punishment. Moreover, sentence was suspended on the condition that accused was to furnish a bond of good behavior undertaking that he would maintain good behavior for a period of three years.
On the basis of order passed by the CJM, the Bank didn’t serve any notice upon Chanchal Singh. Infact a notice was sent which was returned with the postal endorsement that service could not be effected. However, still order dated August 9, 1988 had been passed terminating the services of Chanchal Singh on the basis of conviction dated November 11, 1987.
Chanchal Singh approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Chandigarh against the order of his termination. However, the Tribual held the dismissal of writ petitioner from service as valid in law. But the Tribunal said that the order could not have been given retrospective effect.
Feeling aggrieved by the meager relief given to him by the Tribunal, Chanchal Singh knocked the doors of the High Court which while setting aside the termination order held that Chanchal Singh was entitled for all service benefits.
“Once the writ petitioner was released on probation after conviction, then dismissal from service cannot be automatic without conducting an inquiry or at least serving a show cause notice”, the Single Judge said in the order.
The order of the Single Judge was challenged by the State Bank of India in the Division Bench and Senior AAG Gagan Basotra along with Advocate Yuvraj Singh appearing for the appellant submitted that in terms of Section 10(1)(B) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 and part of Section 5(1)(2)(B) of Shastri Award, the bank was entitled to dismiss the employee convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude.
However, Advocate W S Nargal along with Advocate Priyesh Sharma appearing for the accused-respondent vehemently argued that the principles of natural justice are required to be followed in a case like the petitioner-respondent because it is essential to seek his explanation in respect of his conduct which had led to his conviction. “There is no rigid principle of law which may require delinquent employee to show any prejudice caused to him on account of non-observance of principles of natural justice”, he said, adding “the term moral turpitude is a term of art and in the absence of any specific definition every act cannot be regarded as an act of mortal turpitude’.
After hearing both the sides, Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M M Kumar and Justice Hasnain Massodi observed, “it would be necessary to set right the position of law which is not correctly depicted by the Single Judge. Section 12 of the J&K Probation of Offenders Act, 1966 is pari material to the Parliamentary Act of 1958. However, the expression ‘shall not suffer disqualification’ has to be interpreted as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in judgement in Shankar Dass case”.
“Accordingly, the expression ‘shall not suffer any disqualification’ has to be given the meaning for the purposes of Statute like Representation of Peoples Act as used in Chapter III and Chapter IV”, the DB said, adding “it would not extend to service matters emerging from the relationship of employer and employee”.
With these observations, the DB dismissed the appeal against the order of Single Judge.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel