Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 211 (JHR)

Sankho Hembram v. Union Bank of India

2019-01-22

ANANDA SEN

body2019
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 29.01.2016 issued by the respondents, by which petitioner has been dismissed from service by invoking Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act. The appellate order dated 20th October, 2016 is also under challenge by filing I.A. No.593 of 2017. 3. The petitioner was appointed in the service of Union Bank of India. While he was posted at Chaibasa, he sanctioned loans to several self-help groups (SHG) under the Swarn Jayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana. It is alleged that the petitioner demanded bribe and he was caught red handed with tainted notes by the Central Bureau of Investigation for which R.C. 18/A/2008-R was registered and the petitioner was put on trial. After the trial, the Special Judge, CBI, on 31.08.2015, held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 3 (three) years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before this Court being Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.737 of 2015. The appeal was admitted and the petitioner who was on provisional bail, his bail was confirmed. The said criminal appeal is still pending. As the petitioner stood convicted for criminal offence involving moral turpitude, vide order dated 29th January, 2016, the Disciplinary Authority issued an order of major penalty, i.e., dismissal from service of the Bank with effect from the date he is convicted. This order of dismissal was challenged in appeal, which was upheld vide order dated 20th October, 2016 (Annexure IA/2). 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of dismissal is absolutely non-speaking and no reasons for imposing the harshest punishment has been disclosed. He submits that as per the Union Bank of India Officers and Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations of 1976, the Disciplinary Authority had to consider on the point of punishment, but, in the case of the petitioner, the same has not been done. He submits that as per the Union Bank of India Officers and Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations of 1976, the Disciplinary Authority had to consider on the point of punishment, but, in the case of the petitioner, the same has not been done. He submits that there were several other major punishments, but, why the punishment of dismissal was issued is not known, which renders the order bad. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank submits that admittedly, the petitioner has been convicted in a criminal case, which involves immoral turpitude. He submits that the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 prohibits employment of a person, who, at any time, has been convicted by a criminal Court of an offence involving moral turpitude. He submits that thus, the dismissal of the petitioner is absolutely justified. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties, I find that it is an admitted case that the petitioner is a convict as on date. His conviction is under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the allegation, which has been proved in trial is that he had accepted bribe. This offence involves moral turpitude. It is also admitted that the criminal appeal of the petitioner is pending and his sentence has been suspended. Mere suspending sentence and releasing the appellant (petitioner) on bail does not mean that his conviction is interfered with or is suspended. The petitioner remains to be a convict, but, only his sentence remains suspended. In this case, the petitioner, thus is still a convict. Section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 prohibits employment of managing agents and imposes restriction on certain forms of employment. As per the provision of Section 10(b)(i) of the said Act, no banking Company shall employ or continue the employment of any person – who is or at any time has been convicted by a Criminal Court of an offence involving moral turpitude. Thus, as per the said provision of law, the respondent Bank cannot keep the petitioner in employment. Thus, his dismissal order is absolutely justified and is legal. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned order by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service. 7. The judicial pronouncement, which the petitioner has relied upon, is not applicable in view of the facts of the case and in view of Section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. 8. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned order by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service. 7. The judicial pronouncement, which the petitioner has relied upon, is not applicable in view of the facts of the case and in view of Section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. 8. Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and position of law, I find no merit in this writ application. The same is, thus, dismissed. 9. Since the criminal appeal of the petitioner is still pending, petitioner will be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum, after disposal of the appeal being Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.737 of 2015, keeping in view the judgment passed therein. 10. In view of the final order passed in the writ application, which takes into consideration the appellate order also, the interlocutory application being I.A. No.593 of 2017 stands disposed of accordingly.