THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & Ors. v. P. SOUPRAMANIANE

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 the Respondent u/s.324, IPC – Conviction affirmed by the Appellate Court – Respondent discharged from service – Respondent filed Writ Petition in the High Court – Dismissed – Writ Appeal – Allowed by the Division Bench – Held: s.10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 provides that conviction by criminal court of an offence involving moral turpitude shall disentitle a person from continuing in employment of a banking company – Though every offence is a crime against the society, discontinuance from service according to the Banking Regulation Act can be only for committing an offence involving moral turpitude – Acts which disclose depravity and wickedness of character can be categorized as offences involving moral turpitude – Whether an offence involves moral turpitude or not depends upon the facts and the circumstances of the case – Present case concerns an assault – There was no motive for the Respondent to cause the death of the victims – Criminal courts below found that the injuries caused to the victims were simple in nature – Crime 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 High Court, affirmed – Service Law – Penal Code, 1860 – s.324. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 provides that conviction by a criminal court of an offence involving moral turpitude shall disentitle a person from continuing in employment of a banking company. The reasons given by the High Court for setting aside the order of discharge and directing 1064 STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS v. P. SOUPRAMANIANE 1065 the reinstatement of the Respondent in service are not agreed with. A show-cause notice was issued to the Respondent in which it was categorically mentioned that the Respondent cannot continue in service after his conviction in a criminal case involving moral turpitude in view of Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. After considering the explanation of the Respondent, an order of discharge was passed. The High Court is not right in holding that no reasons had been given by the bank for discontinuing the Respondent from service. The High Court committed an error in holding that the order of discharge should be set aside on the ground that the provision of law under which the Respondent was discharged was not mentioned in the order. Yet another reason given by the High Court for interference 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 a right to continue in service. In fact the employer is under an obligation to discontinue the services of an employee convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. The observations made by a criminal court are not binding on the employer who has the liberty of dealing with his employees suitably. [Paras 4, 5][1069-A; D-G]

1.2 Conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude disqualifies a person from continuing in service in a bank. Though every offence is a crime against the society, discontinuance from service according to the Banking Regulation Act can be only for committing an offence involving moral turpitude. Acts which disclose depravity and wickedness of character can be categorized as offences involving moral turpitude. Whether an offence involves moral turpitude or not depends upon the facts and the circumstances of the case. Ordinarily, the tests that can be applied for judging an offence involving moral turpitude are: a) Whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock 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 the perpetrators could be considered to be of a depraved character or a person who was to be looked down upon by the society. The other important factors that are A B C D E F G H 1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 6 S.C.R. to be kept in mind to conclude that an offence involves moral turpitude are :– the person who commits the offence; the person against whom it is committed; the manner and circumstances in which it is alleged to have been committed; and the values of the society. According to the National Incident – Based Reporting System (NIBRS), a crime data collection system used in the United States of America, each offence belongs to one of the three categories which are: crimes against persons, crimes against property, and crimes against society. Crimes against persons include murder, rape, and assault where the victims are always individuals. The object of crimes against property, for example, robbery and burglary is to obtain money, property, or some other benefits. Crimes against society for example gambling, prostitution, and drug violations, represent society’s prohibition against engaging in certain types of activities.[Paras 6, 8] [1070-B; G; 1071-G; 1072-A-F]

1.3 There can be no manner of doubt about certain offences which can straightaway be termed as involving moral turpitude e.g. offences under the Prevention of Corruption of Act, NDPS Act, etc. This case concerns an assault. It is very difficult to state that every assault is not an offence involving moral turpitude. A simple assault is different from an aggravated assault. All cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorized as crimes involving moral turpitude. On the other hand, the use of a dangerous weapon which can cause the death of the victim may result in an offence involving moral turpitude. In the instant case, there was no motive for the Respondent to cause the death of the victims. The criminal courts below found that the injuries caused to the victims were simple in nature. The crime committed by the Respondent does not involve moral turpitude. As the Respondent is not guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude, he is not liable to be discharged from service. [Para 9] [1072-A-D]