R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed seeking for an order to quash the order dated 10-6-2002, Annexure-E with a further direction of reinstatement with other benefits. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as under: the petitioner is an employee of the Bank. One Sri Jayadeva initiated proceedings against the petitioner with regard to dishonouring of a cheque issued by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act. The petitioner was convicted. An appeal was filed before the Sessions Judge, unsuccessfully. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition in Cri. R. P. No. 512 of 1998 in this Court. The petitioner made over the payment by way of DD to Jayadeva to compound the offence by way of an order at Annexure-A. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30-1-2002. He was asked to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him in terms of Section 10 (l) (b) (i) of the Act. The petitioner submitted his reply. Thereafter, an order was passed ordering termination with immediate effect. This order is challenged in this petition. ( 3 ) THE respondent has filed a detailed counter. They strongly rely on section 10 (l) (b) (i) of the Banking Regulation Act to contend that termination is proper and legal. They also say that the Provincial Insolvency act is not applicable to the facts of this case. ( 4 ) HEARD the Counsel. Sri P. S. Rajagopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the material facts, if read as a whole, would show that the petitioner has not compounded the offence and Section 10 is wholly inapplicable to the facts of this case. Section 10 is referable to insolvency proceedings and not the proceedings like the case on hand. ( 5 ) PER contra, learned Counsel Sri A. Keshava Bhat, with vehemence contends that the facts of this case would show that the petitioner is guilty of violation of Section 10 and therefore they are justified in passing the order. He also says that the petitioner was convicted both by the magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge. ( 6 ) IN the light of the rival submissions, I have seen the material on record. He also says that the petitioner was convicted both by the magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge. ( 6 ) IN the light of the rival submissions, I have seen the material on record. ( 7 ) THE impugned order is passed on the basis of the petitioner having compounded the offence with the creditor before the High Court. In the light of this clear foundation the argument of Sri A. Keshava Bhat, learned Counsel, that the petitioner is terminated for conviction is not acceptable to me. In the present circumstances the said argument is rejected. ( 8 ) COMING to the main argument, let me see as to whether Section 10 (l) (b) (i) of the Banking Regulation Act is applicable to the facts or not. Section 10 (l) (b) (i) reads as under: "prohibition of employment of managing agents and restrictions on certain forms of employment. (1) No banking company (a) shall employ or be managed by a managing agent; or (b) shall employ or continue the employment of any person (i) who is, or at any time has been, adjudicated insolvent, or has suspended payment or has compounded with his creditors, or who is, or has been, convicted by a Criminal Court of an offence involving moral turpitude". ( 9 ) A reading of the said provision would show that their exists a prohibition in the event of compounding of an offence with the creditor by an employee of the Bank. The object is laudable one. In the case on hand, the material facts would reveal that aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner filed a petition in Cri. R. P. No. 512 of 1998. An application was filed and in the said application, it is stated that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the respondent-complainant to compound the offence under Section 320 of the Cr. P. C. This Court in the order dated 11-7- 2000 at Annexure-A has noticed the request of the complainant-respondent seeking permission to compound the offence concerned. This Court notices the submission of the complainant-respondent in the order. According to the order of this Court, the complainant-respondent stated that at the instance of the elders, the matter has been settled and that he (respondent-complainant) would therefore request for permission to compound the offence. This Court in para 3 has ordered that the respondent-complainant is permitted to compound the offence. According to the order of this Court, the complainant-respondent stated that at the instance of the elders, the matter has been settled and that he (respondent-complainant) would therefore request for permission to compound the offence. This Court in para 3 has ordered that the respondent-complainant is permitted to compound the offence. ( 10 ) A combined reading of the application, the submission before this court and the order of this Court would show that the petitioner, at no point of time has compounded the offence with the creditor in this Court as stated in the impugned order. Therefore, the foundation for termination on the ground of compounding of an offence by the petitioner is factually and legally unsustainable. ( 11 ) IF this conclusion is irresistible, then, the impugned order has to go in the given set of facts. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order in the given set of facts. Both the counsels however made some submission with regard to Section 10 in the light of Provincial Insolvency Act. I do not want to express any opinion on that issue in the light of the order being set aside on other grounds. ( 12 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. A direction is issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and provide him all benefits in accordance with law. I also deem it proper to observe that the Bank may proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law and if available to them in law. No costs. --- *** --- .