JUDGMENT Dr. B.R.SARANGI, J. - The petitioner, who was an employee of Koraput Panchabati Gramya Bank, has filed this application challenging the order dated 18.09.2007 in Annexure-6 passed by the Chairman, Utkal Gramya Bank, Bolangir rejecting his prayer to reinstate him in service. 2. The factual background of this case is that the petitioner was initially selected and appointed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in Koraput Panchabati Gramya Bank, pursuant to which he joined on 13.04.1981. In 1988 he was involved in a criminal case, i.e. I.C.C. No. 9/1988, for offences under Section 494/109, IPC filed by his wife before the learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh wherein by order dated 09.02.1988 he was convicted and sentenced to R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo imprisonment for six months. Against the said order the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 64/24 of 1989/88 wherein learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puri by order dated 22.09.1995 confirmed the order of conviction by the trial Court and as a consequence thereof he was dismissed from service on 31.07.1995. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision bearing No. 520/1995 before this Court in which he was acquitted of ,the charges vide order dated 25.04.2001. After being acquitted of the charges, the petitioner moved the authority on 22.06.2002, 11.10.2002 and 07.11.2002 claiming his reinstatement in service, but the authority did not pass any order on his representation in that regard. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 7372/2003 seeking direction to the Chairman of the Bank to reinstate him in service with all service and consequential benefits within a stipulated time. On consideration of his grievance, this Court by order dated 02.07.2007 disposed of the writ petition directing the Chairman to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 11.10.2002 within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. 3. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 23-A(1) of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 the Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India issued a notification on 31.07.2005 for amalgamation of Bolangir Anchalika Gramya Bank, Kalahandi Anchalika Gramya Bank and Koraput Panchabati Gramya Bank which were sponsored by the State Bank of India, into one rural bank namely, Utkal Gramya Bank, having its Head Office at Bolangir. Therefore, by the time the order dated 02.07.2007 was passed in W.P.(C) No. 7372/2003, the amalgamation of three Rural Banks had already taken place. Consequent upon that the petitioner brought the said fact to the notice of this Court with a prayer to direct the Chairman of Utkal Gramya Bank to consider his claim in conformity with the provisions of law. In compliance with the said order, the Chairman passed the impugned order dated 18.09.2007 as per Annexure-6 with the following grounds: (i) You have been dismissed from Bank's service in terms of Regulation 29(3)(a) of erstwhile K.P.G. Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1980. (ii) Now you are claiming reinstatement in Bank's service in terms of Clause 29(4) of erstwhile K.P.G. Bank Staff Service Regulations. (iii) In your case, you have not been honourably acquitted by the Hon'ble Court. As such the provisions of Clause 24(4) of erstwhile K.P.G. Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1980 is not applicable to you." As the petitioner's claim for reinstatement in service was turned down, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ application assailing the impugned order dated 18.09.2007, Annexure-6. 4. On being noticed, opposite party entered appearance and filed his counter affidavit reiterating the fact that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, i.e. an offence of bigamy, under Section 494 IPC for which he has been convicted by the learned SDJM, Nayagarh in I.C.C. No. 9/1988, vide order dated 09.02.1988 and the said order was also upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in Criminal Appeal No. 64/24 of 1989/88 vide order dated 22.09.1995. But, subsequently, in Criminal Revision No. 520/1995, this Court acquitted him of the charge vide order dated 25.04.2001 subject to payment of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant-wife. It is the admitted fact that due to conviction by a criminal Court, the petitioner was dismissed from his service and when he claimed for reinstatement, the same was rejected by the competent authority vide Annexure-6. It is further urged that the petitioner and the members of the aforesaid Gramya Bank are governed by the Staff Service Regulation of the Koraput Panchabati Gramya Bank. This Regulation was passed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 30 of the RRB Act and thus, the said Regulation is statutory in nature and the same is binding upon the Staff of the Bank. This Regulation was passed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 30 of the RRB Act and thus, the said Regulation is statutory in nature and the same is binding upon the Staff of the Bank. As per Regulation 29(4) only when an accused employee is honourably acquitted, he is entitled to the benefit of reinstatement in service. It is further stated that "honourably acquitted" means the acquittal should be after full consideration of evidence and that the prosecution failed to prove the charges. Since the case of the petitioner does not come under the purview of "honourably acquitted" as per Regulation 29(4), he is not entitled to the relief claimed by him and the consequential benefits thereof. 5. With reference to the aforesaid factual backdrop, the following point emerges for consideration. (i) Whether the authority is justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in service after being acquitted of the charges in the criminal case. (ii) To what order? 6. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was duly selected and appointed by the competent authority and was discharging his responsibility as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in Koraput Panchabati Gramya Bank. To regulate the service condition of the petitioner in exercise of power conferred by Section 30 of the RRB Act, a Regulation has been framed called "Koraput Panchabati Bank Service Regulation 1980". For better appreciation Regulation 29(3)(4) is quoted below: "29(3)(a) - An Officer or employee shall be liable to dismissal or to any of other penalties referred to in Regulation 30 if he is committed to prison for debt or is convicted of an offence, which is the opinion of the competent authority either involves in "Moral Turpitude" has a bearing on any of the affairs of the Bank or on the discharge by the officer or employees of his duties in the Bank, the opinion in this respect, of the competent authority shall be conclusive and binding on the employees. (b) Such dismissal or other penalty may be imposed, as from the date of his committal to prison or conviction and nothing in regulation 30 shall apply to such imposition. 29(4) - Where an officer or employee has been dismissed in pursuance of Sub-Regulation (2) and the relative conviction is set aside by a higher Court and the officer or employee is honourably acquitted shall be reinstated in service." 7. 29(4) - Where an officer or employee has been dismissed in pursuance of Sub-Regulation (2) and the relative conviction is set aside by a higher Court and the officer or employee is honourably acquitted shall be reinstated in service." 7. On perusal of the provisions contained in Regulation 29(3)(a), it is stated that an officer or employee shall be liable for dismissal or to any of other penalties referred to in Regulation 30 if he is committed to prison for debt or is convicted of an offence which is in .the opinion of the competent authority either involves in "Moral Turpitude" having a bearing on any pf the affairs of the Bank or on the discharge by the officer or employee of his duties in the Bank. On the allegation as it appears that the petitioner was not committed to prison for debt or was convicted of an offence which was the opinion of the competent authority either involved "moral turpitude" or had a bearing on any of the affairs of the Bank or on the discharge by the officer or employees of his duties in the Bank. Therefore, the main question has to be considered what constitutes "moral turpitude". 8. 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. In common parlance "moral turpitude" means baseness of character. Concise Oxford Dictionary defines 'moral' - 'Concerned with goodness or badness of character of disposition or with distinction between right and wrong....... virtuous in general conduct...... 'Turpitude' means "baseness" depravity, wickedness". Thus any act which is contrary to good morals from society's point of view will come within the ambit of "moral turpitude". 9. In Durga Singh v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1957 Punjab 97, the Court expressed the meaning of "moral turpitude" as follows: "The term "moral turpitude" is rather a vague one and it may have different meaning in different contexts. The term has generally been taken to mean to be a conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals and contrary to what a man owes to a fellow-man or to society in general. The term has generally been taken to mean to be a conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals and contrary to what a man owes to a fellow-man or to society in general. It has never been held that gravity of punishment is to be considered in determining whether the misconduct involved moral turpitude or not". 10. The expression "moral turpitude" has been more elaborately explained in Baleshwar Singh v. District Magistrate and Collector, AIR 1959 All 71 wherein it was observed as follows: “The expression ‘moral turpitude’ is not defined anywhere. But it means anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. It implies depravity and wickedness 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 charge 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 be held to be due to vileness and depravity. It will be contrary to accepted customary rule and duty between man and man.” 11. The apex Court in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1996 SC 3300 = (1996) 4 SCC 17 dealt with the question as to what was the meaning of the 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.” 12. 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. In Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola, (1997) 4 SCC 1 , the apex Court while dealing with “moral turpitude” has held as follows: “In common parlance “moral turpitude” means baseness of character. In Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola, (1997) 4 SCC 1 , the apex Court while dealing with “moral turpitude” has held as follows: “In common parlance “moral turpitude” means baseness of character. Concise Oxford Dictionary defines ‘moral’-Concerned with goodness or badness of character of disposition or with distinction between right and wrong…… virtuous in general conduct….. ‘Turpitude’ means ‘baseness: depravity, wickedness”. Thus any act which is contrary to good morals from society’s Thus any act which is contrary to good morals from society’s point of view will come within the ambit of “moral turpitude.” 13. In Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Punjab National Bank, (2010) 8 SCC 573 the apex Court held that “moral turpitude” means anything contrary to honesty, modesty or good morals. It means evilness and depravity. In fact, the conviction of a person in a crime involving moral turpitude impeaches his credibility, as he has been found to have indulged in shameful, wicked and base activities. 14. Taking into consideration the meaning of “moral turpitude” in the context of Regulation 29(3)(a) the fact that petitioner was convicted and subsequently acquitted does not come within its purview, rather the petitioner having been involved in an offence against his wife under Section 494 IPC and subsequently acquitted that cannot be construed to be an offence involving “moral turpitude” and not come within the meaning of Regulation 29(3)(a) and as such the conduct of the petitioner indicated no loss to the bank which involved “moral turpitude”. To attract the provision of Regulation 29(3)(a) if the petitioner has been dismissed from service other than the proviso of 29(a) and subsequently acquitted, there is no valid and justifiable reason available to the authority not to reinstate him in service. 15. The ground of rejection of petitioner's request for his reinstatement in service under Clause (iii) Of Annexure-6 was that the petitioner had not been "honourably acquitted" by the Court and as such the provision of Regulation 29(3) of K.P.G. Bank Service 1980 was not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Rejection on that score cannot be sustained in the eye of law of the fact that as per Regulation 29(4) where an officer or employee has been dismissed in pursuance of Sub-regulation (3) and the conviction is set aside by a higher Court and the officer or employee is honourably acquitted, shall be reinstated in service. Rejection on that score cannot be sustained in the eye of law of the fact that as per Regulation 29(4) where an officer or employee has been dismissed in pursuance of Sub-regulation (3) and the conviction is set aside by a higher Court and the officer or employee is honourably acquitted, shall be reinstated in service. As per the provision contained in the Criminal Procedure Code the word "honourably acquitted" has no where been defined nor has it been referred to any purpose and Regulation 29(4) states about "honourably acquittal", but it does not also define what is the meaning of such phrase. 16. The apex Court in The State of Assam and another v. Raghava Rajgopalchari, 1972 SLR 915 (SC) in paragraph-8 observed as follows: "The expression "honourably acquitted" is one which is unknown to Courts of justice. Apparently, it is a form of order used in Court's martial and other extra-judicial tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the explanation given by the appellant, believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the Government authorities and by the Magistrate. Further, we decided that the appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what the Govt. Authorities term "honourably acquitted", 17. Similar question came up for consideration by the apex Court while interpreting Regulation 46(2) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff Regulation 1948) in The Management of Reserve Bank of India v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, AIR 1994 SC 552 = (1994) 1 SCC 541 where it is held that only Regulation 46(4) provided for reinstatement of service of the employee who has been dismissed on account of his conviction which is set aside by the High Court and the employee is honourably acquitted. 18. There is no specific explanation given what constitutes "honourably acquitted" but the provisions contained in Regulation 29(4) has its relevance with the provisions contained in Regulation 29(3). If an employee is involved in any act of the "moral turpitude", in that case the provision contains in Regulation 29(4) may not come to the rescue of the said employee. 18. There is no specific explanation given what constitutes "honourably acquitted" but the provisions contained in Regulation 29(4) has its relevance with the provisions contained in Regulation 29(3). If an employee is involved in any act of the "moral turpitude", in that case the provision contains in Regulation 29(4) may not come to the rescue of the said employee. On the other hand, if an employee is convicted other than the provisions contained in Regulation 29(3), in that case as per the provision of Regulation 29(4), the employee is entitled to be reinstated in service and also entitled to get all the service benefit and consequential service benefits. 19. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order passed by the Chairman rejecting the request of the petitioner for reinstatement of service pursuant to Annexure-6 dated 18.09.2007 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to service benefit and all consequential service benefits as admissible under law. 20. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.