http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6

PETITIONER:

ALLAHABAD BANK AND ANR.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

DEEPAK KUMAR BHOLA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/03/1997

BENCH:

J.S. VERMA, B.N. KIRPAL

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

KIRPAL. J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Allahabad

High Court which had allowed the writ petition filed by the

respondent and quashed an order of suspension which had been

passed pending prosecution launched against him. Briefly

stated the facts are that during the year 1984-85. The

respondent was working as Clerk-cum-Typist in Allahabad Bank

with on of its branch at Lucknow. An investigation was

conducted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment and a

case was registered on 29.8.1986. The C.B.I./S.P.E.,

Lucknow, after investigation, submitted a report whereupon

the Superintendent of Police wrote a letter dated 18.9.1987

to the appellant bank for according sanction for prosecution

of the respondent and one other person namely Ajay Bhatia

inter alia for criminal mis-conduct and cheating.

On the receipt of the aforesaid letter the appellant

took steps to accord sanction to prosecute the respondent.

It also decided to take action under clause 19.3 (a) of the

first Bipartite Settlement 1966 between the management and

the Union and to suspend the respondent. Accordingly, the

suspension order dated 23.9.1987 was passed which reads as

under :

"Since it is revealed that you

while functioning as clerk-cum-

typist in Allahabad bank. Aalam

Bagh. Lucknow during the year 1984-

85 entered into a criminal

conspiracy with Shri Ajai Bhatia.

Clerk-Cum-Cashier under suspension.

Shri H.R. Gurnani Advocate, lucknow

and some unknown persons with the

common object to commit the

offences of criminal misconduct and

cheating by adopting corrupt and

illegal means or otherwise abusing

your position by obtaining undue

pecuniary gain for yourself and or

others and since steps to get you

prosecuted have been taken, you are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6

hereby placed under suspension with

First Bipartite Settlement dated

19.10.1966 pending proceedings

against you.

During suspension period you will

be paid subsistence allowance as

per rules. You will also not

leave station without prior

permission of the competent

authority during suspension period.

You are also required to submit in

writing your local postal address

where you want to be communicated

hereafter."

Pursuant to the sanction of the prosecution charge

sheet dated 29.9.1987 was filed in the court against the

respondent. Thereupon, the court issued summons on

26.11.1987 to the respondent filed a writ petition in the

Allahabad High Court challenging the aforesaid order of

suspension. By the impugned judgment dated 23.4.1991 the

High Court came to the conclusion that by the mere fact that

a person had entered into the criminal concpiracy, it could

not be regarded that an offence involving "moral turpitude"

had been committed and, therefore, the appellant had no

jurisdiction to pass the order of suspension. The High

Court, accordingly, quashed the suspension order and

directed the payment of full salary and allowances to the

respondent. This appal arises as a consequent of special

leave having been granted to the appellant.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the

appellant that the respondent had committed an offence

involving moral turpitude and, therefore, the appellant had

the jurisdiction to suspend the respondent. The submission

of Mr. R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel on behalf of the

respondent, however was that on the facts and circumstances

of the case when nearly 10 years have elapsed, this court

should not interfere. It was further submitted that there

had been no application of mind by the bank to the passing

of the suspension order and the High Court was,

consequently, right in quashing the order of suspension.

The charge sheet, which was filed, specific the acts of

commission commissions which were alleged to have been

committed by the respondent and others. The acts as

specified by the charge-sheet are as follows:

"Shri Ajai Bhatia, while

functioning as Clerk-cum-Cashier

Allahabad bank. Alam Bagh Branch,

Lucknow during the year 1984-85 had

shown the issue of cheque books

bearing SI. No. 7771 to 7780

against account no. 2618 in name of

Shri Gajraj Sharma, and he made

the endorsement in the cheque issue

register against this entry. Shri

Deepak Kumar Bhola signed as

Rajendra for having recieved the

said cheque book on behalf of A/C

holder, the ledgers of S.B. A/C

Nos. 2284 belonging to Sri Shanti

Prakash and Smt. Prem Lata, show

that the cheque book containing

cheque Nos. 7631. 7640. 7581 to

7590 and 7551-7560 respectively

were issued to these A/C holders

when actually non e of these

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6

account holder shad ever applied

for any cheque book nor actually

cheque book was issued to any of

these person and fictitious entires

were made in the ledger account.

The cheque no. 7631 amounting to

Rs. 9560.62 paisa and cheque no.

7632 for Rs. 7532.00 was

purportedly to have been issued by

genuine account holder Lekha Ram of

Account holder of A/C No. 2484.

Another cheque No. 7551 amounting

to Rs. 1400.00 cheque No. 7552

amounting to rs. 14.800.00

purportedly have been issued by Sri

Shanti Prakash A/C holder of

account No. 1103 and cheque No,

07775 for Rs. 12800.51 purported to

have been issued by Sri Gajre

Sharma account holder of A/C No.

2618 were presented in the

Corporation Bank. Quiaser Bagh

Lucknow by Sri Deepak Kumar Bhola

aforesaid who was working as Clerk

cum Typist in Allahabad Bank Alam

Bagh Branch. Lucknow in the name of

Rajendra Rathore. Shri H.R.

Gurnani, Advocate, Lucknow had

introduced Shri D.K. Bhola as

Rajendra Rathore at the time of

opening of account and Shri H.R.

Gurnani Advocate had his own

account No. 87 in the said

Corporation Bank, Sri Deepak Bhola,

aforesaid submitted five pay in

slips for deposing the cheque no.

7551 for Rs. 11400.60, 7552 for Rs.

14800.00, 7632 for Rs. 7532, 7631

for Rs. 9560 and 7775 for Rs.

12800.51 through five cheque No.

021721 dated 24.4.84 for rs.

11000.00, 021762 dated 1.9.84 for

Rs. 1500.00 021763 dated 15.8.84

for Rs. 17000.00, 021765 dt.

25.9.84 for Rs. 11000.00, 021762

dated 1.9.84 for Rs. 1500.00,

021763 dated 15.8.84 for Rs.

17000.00, 021765 dated 25.9.84 for

Rs. 21900.00 and 021767 dated

25.9.84 for Rs. 203.73 paisa. Said

Deepak Kumar Bhola impersonating

himself as Rajendra Rathore

operated S.B. A/C No. 3206 in

Corporation Bank. Quiserbagh

Lucknow and withdrew the entire

amount. Whereas, the aforesaid

account holders Sri Lekharam having

A/C No. 2484, Sri Shanti Prakash

and Srimati Premlata A/c No. 1103

and Sri Gajraj Sharma A/c No. 2618

never issued these cheques and

never availaed the cheque facility

in operating their respective

accounts.

Total sum of Rs. 56.103.77 was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6

withdrawn from said fake account

No. 3206 by Sri Deepak Kumar Bhola

by issueing five cheques by signing

as Rajendra Rathore."

On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the

respondent was charged for offences punishable under

Sections 120(B)/429/420/467/468/471 I.P.C. and 5 (2) read

with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947.

It will be appropriate for refer clauses 19.2 & 19.3 of

the First Bipartite Settlement under which orders were

passed suspending the respondent. These clauses read as

follows:

"19.2 By the expression "

offence" shall be meant any offence

involving moral turpitude for which

an employee is liable to conviction

and sentence under any provision of

law.

"19.3 (a) When in the opinion of

the management an employee has

committed an offence, unless he be

otherwise prosecuted, the bank may

take steps to prosecute him or get

him prosecuted, the bank may take

steps to prosecute him or get him

prosecuted, the bank may take steps

to prosecuted and in such a case he

may also be suspended.

(b) If he is convicted, he may be

dismissed with effect from the date

of his conviction or be given any

lessor from of punishment as

mentioned in Clause 19.6 below".

It is evident from the bare perusal of the aforesaid

clauses that if in the opinion of the management, an

employee has committed an offence, then the bank may take

steps to prosecute him and in such a case, he may also be

suspended. The word "offence" occurring in clause 19.3 (a)

has been defined in clause 19.2 to mean any offence

involving "moral turpitude" for which an employee is liable

to conviction an sentence under any provision of law.

What is an offence involving "moral turpitude" must

depend upon the facts of each case. But whatever may be the

meaning which may be given to the term "moral turpitude" it

appears to us that 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.

This Court in PAWAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND

ANOTHER. (1996) 4 SCC 17 at page 21 dealt with the question

as to what is the meaning of 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".

This expression has been more elaborately explained in

BALESHWAR SINGH vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND COLLECTOR.

BANARAS, AIR 1959 All. 71 where it was observed as follows:

"The expression "moral turpitude'

is not defined anywhere. But it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6

means anything done contrary to

justice, honesty, modesty or good

morals. It implies depravity and

wickness 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 charged 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 beheld to be due to vileness

and deprivity. It will be

contrary to accepted customary rule

and duty between man and man"

In our opinion the aforesaid observations correctly

spell out the true meaning of the expression "moral

turpitude". Applying the aforesaid test, if the allegations

made against the respondent are proved, it will clearly show

that he had committed an offence involving moral turpitude

and, therefore, the appellant had the jurisdiction to

suspend him under the aforesaid clause 19.3. The High Court

observed that there was nothing on record to suggest that

the management had formed an opinion objectively on the

consideration of all relevant material available against the

petitioner that in the circumstances of the case the

criminal acts attributed to the petitioner implied depravity

and vileness of character and are such as would involve

moral turpitude. It did not regard entering into a criminal

conspiracy to commit the aforesaid offences as being an

offence involving moral turpitude. We one, to say the least,

surprised at the conclusion which has been arrived by the

Allahabad High Court. There was material an received before

the appellant, in the form of the report of the

C.B.I./S.P.E., which clearly indicated the acts of

commission and commissions, amounting to "moral turpitude'

alleged to have been committed by the respondent. further

more the respondent has been charged with various offences

allegedly committed while he was working in the bank and

punishment for which could extend upto ten years

imprisonment (in case the respondent is convicted under

Section I.P.C.).

We are unable to agree with the contention of learned

counsel for the respondent that there has been no

application of mind or the objective consideration of the

facts by the appellant before it passed the orders of

suspension. As already observed, the very fact that the

investigation was conducted by the C.B.I which resulted in

the filing of a charge-sheet, alleging various offences

having been committed by the respondent, was sufficient for

the appellant to conclude that pending prosecution the

respondent should be suspended. It would be indeed

inconceivable that a bank should allow an employee to

continue to remain on duty when he is facing serious charges

of corruption and mis-appropriation of money. Allowing such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6

a employee to remain in the seat would result in giving him

further opportunity to indulge in the acts for which he was

being prosecuted. Under the circumstances, it was the

bounden duty of the appellant to have taken recourse to the

provisions of clause 19.3 of the First Bipartite Settlement,

1966. The mere fact that nearly 10 years have elapsed since

the charge-sheet was filed. can also be no ground for

allowing the respondent to come back to duty on a sensitive

post in the bank, unless he is exonerated of the charge.

In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in

quashing the orders of suspension. We, accordingly, allow

this apeal, set-aside the impugned judgment t the Allahabad

High Court and dismiss the Writ Petition No. 6118/1988 which

had been filed by the respondent. There will, however, be no

order as to costs.