THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS versus P. SOUPRAMANIANE on 26 April 2019

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 6 S.C.R.

A

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS

v.

P. SOUPRAMANIANE

(Civil Appeal No. 7011 of 2009)

B

APRIL 26, 2019

[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND M. R.SHAH, JJ.]

Banking Regulation Act, 1949 – s.10(1)(b)(i) – Respondent,working as Messenger in the State Bank of India stabbed one ‘K’and one ‘S’ with a broken soda bottle – Trial court convicted theCRespondent u/s.324, IPC – Conviction affirmed by the AppellateCourt – Respondent discharged from service – Respondent filedWrit Petition in the High Court – Dismissed – Writ Appeal – Allowedby the Division Bench – Held: s.10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking RegulationAct, 1949 provides that conviction by criminal court of an offenceDinvolving moral turpitude shall disentitle a person from continuingin employment of a banking company – Though every offence is acrime against the society, discontinuance from service according tothe Banking Regulation Act can be only for committing an offenceinvolving moral turpitude – Acts which disclose depravity andwickedness of character can be categorized as offences involvingEmoral turpitude – Whether an offence involves moral turpitude ornot depends upon the facts and the circumstances of the case –Present case concerns an assault – There was no motive for theRespondent to cause the death of the victims – Criminal courts belowfound that the injuries caused to the victims were simple in nature –FCrime committed by the Respondent does not involve moral turpitude– Respondent not guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude –Not liable to be discharged from service – Judgment of the HighCourt, affirmed – Service Law – Penal Code, 1860 – s.324.

Dismissing the appeal, the CourtG

HELD: 1.1 Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking RegulationAct, 1949 provides that conviction by a criminal court of an offenceinvolving moral turpitude shall disentitle a person from continuingin employment of a banking company. The reasons given by theHigh Court for setting aside the order of discharge and directing H

the reinstatement of the Respondent in service are not agreedwith. A show-cause notice was issued to the Respondent in whichit was categorically mentioned that the Respondent cannotcontinue in service after his conviction in a criminal case involvingmoral turpitude in view of Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the BankingRegulation Act, 1949. After considering the explanation of theRespondent, an order of discharge was passed. The High Courtis not right in holding that no reasons had been given by thebank for discontinuing the Respondent from service. The HighCourt committed an error in holding that the order of dischargeshould be set aside on the ground that the provision of law underwhich the Respondent was discharged was not mentioned in theorder. Yet another reason given by the High Court forinterference with the order of discharge is that the criminal courtreleased the Respondent on probation only to permit him tocontinue in service. The release under probation does not entitlean employee to claim a right to continue in service. In fact theemployer is under an obligation to discontinue the services of anemployee convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. Theobservations made by a criminal court are not binding on theemployer who has the liberty of dealing with his employeessuitably. [Paras 4, 5][1069-A; D-G]

1.2 Conviction for an offence involving moral turpitudedisqualifies a person from continuing in service in a bank. Thoughevery offence is a crime against the society, discontinuance fromservice according to the Banking Regulation Act can be only forcommitting an offence involving moral turpitude. Acts whichdisclose depravity and wickedness of character can be categorizedas offences involving moral turpitude. Whether an offenceinvolves moral turpitude or not depends upon the facts and thecircumstances of the case. Ordinarily, the tests that can be appliedfor judging an offence involving moral turpitude are: a) Whetherthe act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the moralconscience or society in general; b) Whether the motive whichled to the act was a base one, and c) Whether on account of theact having been committed the perpetrators could be consideredto be of a depraved character or a person who was to be lookeddown upon by the society. The other important factors that are AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ato be kept in mind to conclude that an offence involves moralturpitude are :– the person who commits the offence; the personagainst whom it is committed; the manner and circumstances inwhich it is alleged to have been committed; and the values of thesociety. According to the National Incident – Based ReportingSystem (NIBRS), a crime data collection system used in the UnitedBStates of America, each offence belongs to one of the threecategories which are: crimes against persons, crimes againstproperty, and crimes against society. Crimes against personsinclude murder, rape, and assault where the victims are alwaysindividuals. The object of crimes against property, for example,Crobbery and burglary is to obtain money, property, or some otherbenefits. Crimes against society for example gambling,prostitution, and drug violations, represent society’s prohibitionagainst engaging in certain types of activities.[Paras 6, 8][1070-B; G; 1071-G; 1072-A-F]

D1.3 There can be no manner of doubt about certain offenceswhich can straightaway be termed as involving moral turpitudee.g. offences under the Prevention of Corruption of Act, NDPSAct, etc. This case concerns an assault. It is very difficult tostate that every assault is not an offence involving moral turpitude.A simple assault is different from an aggravated assault. All casesEof assault or simple hurt cannot be categorized as crimesinvolving moral turpitude. On the other hand, the use of adangerous weapon which can cause the death of the victim mayresult in an offence involving moral turpitude. In the instant case,there was no motive for the Respondent to cause the death ofFthe victims. The criminal courts below found that the injuriescaused to the victims were simple in nature. The crime committedby the Respondent does not involve moral turpitude. As theRespondent is not guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude,he is not liable to be discharged from service. [Para 9][1072-A-D]G

Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Punjab National Bank (2010)8 SCC 573 : [2010] 9 SCR 796 ; Girraj Prasad Meenav. State of Rajasthan (2014) 13 SCC 674 : [2013] 10SCR 393; Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola[1997] 2 SCR 1055; Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana H

(1996) 4 SCC 17 : [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 392; Mangaliv. Chakki Lal AIR 1963 ALL 527 ; Jorabhai HirabhaiRabari v. District Development Officer, MehsanaAIR 1996 Guj 3 – referred to.

A

Black’s Law Dictionary 6[th] Edition; Bouvier’s LawDictionary ‘Moral Turpitude’ - referred to.

B

Cristoval Silva- Trevina 241 & N Dec 687 (AG 2008) –referred to.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7011 of

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2008 of the HighCourt of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 1117 of 2001

E

R. P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv., A. V. Rangam, Buddy A. Ranganadhan,Ms. Stuti Krishna, Advs. for the Appellants.

Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, I. V. Kasyap, R. Vijaynandan Reddy, Advs.for the Respondent.

F

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. 1. The Respondent who wasworking as a Messenger in the State Bank of India at Puducherry wasdischarged from service by an order dated 15.05.1986. The appeal filedby the Respondent against the order of discharge was dismissed on03.07.1986. Later, the Staff Union took up the cause of the Respondentand made a representation on his behalf which was also rejected on04.05.1992. Challenging the aforementioned orders, the Respondent fileda Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Madras which wasdismissed by a learned Single Judge on 07.06.2000. Aggrieved thereby, G

H

Athe Respondent filed a Writ Appeal which was allowed by the DivisionBench of the Madras High Court. The order of discharge of theRespondent from service was set aside and the Appellants were directedto reinstate the Respondent. The Appellants were directed to pay 1/4[th]of the salary from the date of discharge till the date of reinstatement asback wages. Notice was issued by this Court in Special Leave PetitionBfiled by the Appellants on 01.09.2009 and the judgment of the High Courtwas stayed. Thereafter, leave was granted on 19.10.2009 and the interimorder was made absolute. We are informed that the Respondent hasattained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2012.

2. Since the discharge of the Respondent from service is on theCbasis of conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude, it is necessaryto refer to the facts of the criminal case. A report was submitted by theStation House Officer (SHO), Grand Bazaar Police Station, Puducherrythat on 17.06.1983 at 9.00 hours the Respondent voluntarily stabbedKarthiban s/o Dharamssivam and Sivagurunathan s/o BrameDDhanabal with a broken soda bottle. On completion of investigation,charge sheet was filed against the Respondent. Thereafter, charge wasframed under Section 307 IPC. After appreciation of the evidence on-record, the trial court found that the Respondent had no intention tocause murder of the victims who were examined as PWs-1 and 2. Theinjuries were certified as simple by PW-5. The trial court was of theEopinion that there was no material to convict the Respondent underSection 307 IPC. However, the trial court convicted the Respondentunder Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment forthree months. The motive for the crime was an earlier dispute betweentwo groups belonging to different political parties. The conviction wasFaffirmed by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court released theRespondent on probation as it was of the opinion that the Respondentwas a fit person to be dealt with under Section 360 CrPC. One of thereasons given by the Appellate Court to release the Respondent onprobation was that the Respondent was employed as a Messenger in aBank and any sentence of imprisonment would affect his career.G

3. As stated earlier, discharge of the Respondent from servicewas on the ground of his conviction by a criminal court for an offenceinvolving moral turpitude.

4. Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 providesthat conviction by a criminal court of an offence involving moral turpitudeshall disentitle a person from continuing in employment of a bankingcompany. The Writ Appeal filed by the Respondent was allowed by aDivision Bench of the High Court on the ground that the criminal courtreleased the Respondent under probation in exercise of its power underSection 360 CrPC to enable the Respondent to continue in service. TheHigh Court was of the opinion that the purpose of the order of the criminalcourt would be defeated if the Respondent is discharged from service.Another reason given by the High Court is that the provision of lawunder which the bank discharged the Respondent from service was notmentioned and no reasons were assigned by the bank in the order ofdischarge.

5. We do not agree with the reasons given by the High Court forsetting aside the order of discharge and directing the reinstatement ofthe Respondent in service. A show-cause notice was issued to theRespondent in which it was categorically mentioned that the Respondentcannot continue in service after his conviction in a criminal case involvingmoral turpitude in view of Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking RegulationAct, 1949. After considering the explanation of the Respondent, anorder of discharge was passed. The High Court is not right in holdingthat no reasons had been given by the bank for discontinuing theRespondent from service. The High Court committed an error in holdingthat the order of discharge should be set aside on the ground that theprovision of law under which the Respondent was discharged was notmentioned in the order. Yet another reason given by the High Court forinterference 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 aright to continue in service. In fact the employer is under an obligationto discontinue the services of an employee convicted of an offenceinvolving moral turpitude.[1] The observations made by a criminal court are not binding[2] on the employer who has the liberty of dealing with hisemployees suitably.

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 donot have the power to pass a direction that the said conviction will not have any impacton the convict’s services. See: Girraj Prasad Meena v. State of Rajasthan (2014) 13SCC 674

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A6. Though we do not agree with the reasons given by the HighCourt for setting aside the order of discharge of the Respondent fromservice, it is necessary to examine whether Section 10 (1)(b)(i) of BankingRegulation Act is applicable to the facts of the case. Conviction for anoffence involving moral turpitude disqualifies a person from continuingin service in a bank. The conundrum that arises in this case is whetherBthe conviction of the Respondent under Section 324 IPC can be said tobe 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 privateand social duties which man owes to his follow man, or tosociety in general, contrary to accepted and customary ruleof right and duty between man and man.”[3]

C

“implies something immoral in itself regardless of it beingDpunishable by law”; “restricted to the gravest offences,consisting of felonies, infamous crimes, and those that aremalum 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 andEsocial duties which a man owes to his fellow men or to societyin general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule ofright and duty between man and man.”

Burton Legal Thesaurus defines ‘Moral Turpitude’ as :

“Bad faith, bad repute, corruption, defilement, delinquency,Fdiscredit, dishonor, shame, guilt, knavery, misdoing,perversion, shame, ice, wrong.”

8. There is no doubt that there is an obligation on theManagement of the Bank to discontinue the services of an employeewho has been convicted by a criminal court for an offence involvingGmoral turpitude.[5] Though every offence is a crime against the society,discontinuance from service according to the Banking Regulation Act 3 p. 1008

4 p. 1517

H5 Sushil Kumar Singhal (supra)

STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS v. P. SOUPRAMANIANE[L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

can be only for committing an offence involving moral turpitude. Actswhich disclose depravity and wickedness of character can becategorized as offences involving moral turpitude. Whether an offenceinvolves moral turpitude or not depends upon the facts[6] and thecircumstances[7] of the case. Ordinarily, the tests that can be applied forjudging an offence involving moral turpitude are:

a) Whether the act leading to a conviction was such as couldshock 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 theperpetrators could be considered to be of a depraved char-acter or a person who was to be looked down upon by thesociety. [8]

The other important factors that are to be kept in mind toconclude that an offence involves moral turpitude are :– the person whocommits the offence; the person against whom it is committed; themanner and circumstances in which it is alleged to have beencommitted; and the values of the society.[9] According to the NationalIncident – Based Reporting System (NIBRS), a crime data collectionsystem used in the United States of America, each offence belongs toone of the three categories which are: crimes against persons, crimesagainst property, and crimes against society. Crimes against personsinclude murder, rape, and assault where the victims are alwaysindividuals. The object of crimes against property, for example, robberyand burglary is to obtain money, property, or some other benefits. Crimesagainst society for example gambling, prostitution, and drug violations,represent society’s prohibition against engaging in certain types ofactivities. Conviction of any alien of a crime involving moral turpitude isa ground for deportation under the Immigration Law in the United Statesof America. To qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude for suchpurpose, it requires both reprehensible conduct and scienter, whetherwith specific intent, deliberateness, willfulness or recklessness.[10]

6 Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola

7 Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1996) 4 SCC 17 ¶12

8 Mangali v. Chakki Lal, AIR 1963 ALL 527

9 Jorabhai Hirabhai Rabari v. District Development Officer, Mehsana, AIR 1996 Guj 3.

10 Cristoval Silva – Trevina 241 & N Dec 687 (AG 2008)

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A 9. There can be no manner of doubt about certain offences whichcan straightaway be termed as involving moral turpitude e.g. offencesunder the Prevention of Corruption of Act, NDPS Act, etc. Thequestion that arises for our consideration in this case is whether anoffence involving bodily injury can be categorized as a crime involvingmoral turpitude. In this case, we are concerned with an assault. It isBvery difficult to state that every assault is not an offence involving moralturpitude. A simple assault is different from an aggravated assault. Allcases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorized as crimesinvolving moral turpitude. On the other hand, the use of a dangerousweapon which can cause the death of the victim may may result in anCoffence involving moral turpitude. In the instant case, there was nomotive for the Respondent to cause the death of the victims. Thecriminal courts below found that the injuries caused to the victims weresimple 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 anDoffence involving moral turpitude, he is not liable to be discharged fromservice.

10. For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the judgment ofthe High Court. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

E

Divya Pandey

Appeal dismissed.

F

G

H