J. JAISHANKARversusTHE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANR.

j

                                J. JAISHANKAR                                   A
                                        v.
                THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANR.

                               AUGUST 14, 1996

               (K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]
                                                                                B

         Industrial Disputes Act, 1940 : Section JO.

           Employee-Conviction under Section 509 !PC-Imposition of fine of
    Rs. 200---Conviction and sentence attaining finality-Reference under section C
    JO of Industiial Disputes Act sought by employee-Single Judge of High Court
    directing Central Govemment to make reference for adjudication whether
    employee's dismissal was valid-Division Bench modifying the order of di;-
    missal to one of discharge with payment of gratuity-Appeal-Held conviction
    under section 509 !PC involves moral tuTpitude--When a Govemmem servam D
    is dismissed from se1vice on conviction by a ciiminal Court involving moral
    turpitude, it automatically leads to removal from service, without further
    enquiry-A worker cannot be put at a higher pedestal than as the Government
    servant-In view of conviction of the petitioner for offence involving moral
    turpitude the order of dismissal was rightly passed-Single Judge en·ed in
    directing a Reference to the Industrial Tiibunaf-171e order of Division Bench E
    passed on the basis of the concession made by the teamed counsel for the
    respondents modifying the order of dismissal to one of discharge from service
    without consequential retiral benefits but with payment of gratuity was in
    accordance with law.

          Pawan Kumar v. State of Ha1yana, (1996) 4 SCALE 480, held inap-        F
    plicable.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
    No. 15036 of 1996.
                                                                                G
         From the Judgment and Order dated 4.3.96 of the Andhra Pradesh
    High Court in W.A. No. 111 of 1996.

          L. Nageswara Rao, R.S. Krishnan and P.P. Singh for the Petitioner.

          The foilowing Order of the Court was delivered :                      H
                                        703
    704                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A          This special leave petition arises from the judgment and order of
    Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court made on March 4, 1996
    in W.A. No. 111/96. The admitted position is that petitioner was convicted
    for an offence under Section 509, !PC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.
    200. The conviction and sentence had become final. Subsequently, the
    petitioner sought for a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Dis-
B   putes Act, 1947 (for short, the "Act") for adjudication of his dismissal from
    service. The Central Government had refused to refer the dispute. Conse-
    quently, he filed the writ petition in the High Court. The learned single
    Judge by judgment dated September 19, 1995 allowed the writ petition and
    directed the Central Government to make a reference to the Industrial
C   Tribunal for adjudication whether his dismissal from service was in accord-
    ance with law. On appeal, the Division Bench modified the order of the
    learned single Judge and on the basis of the concession made by the
    counsel appearing for the respondent, the order of dismissal from service
    was converted into discharge from service without retiral benefits. How-
    ever, the Division Bench directed the respondent to pay him the gratuity
D   which is payable in accordance with the rules. Calling that order in ques-
    tion, this SLP has been filed.

          Shri L. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, has
    contended that under Rule lO(l)(b)(i) of the Act, no employee of a
    banking company who is or at any time has been convicted by a criminal
E   court of an offence involving moral turpitude, shall be appointed. He
    placed reliance on paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment of this Court in
    Pawan Kumar v. State of Hmyana, (1996) 4 SCALE 480 at 484 and
    contended that when an offence leading to conviction and sentence of a
    fine upto Rs. 2000 was involved, the necessary recommendation came to
F   be made to the Parliament to step in and amend the law so as to remove
    the embargo for appointment in future period. Therefore, in the light of
    the above judgment and the law laid down by this Court, the view taken by
    the High Court is not correct in law. We find no force in the contention.

           In view of the admitted position that the conviction of the petitioner   ,,
G   for an offence under Section 509, !PC had attained finality, it undoubtedly
    involves moral turpitude as it is impermissible for such an employee to
    continue in service. When a Government servant is dismissed from service
    on conviction by a criminal Court involving moral turpitude, it automat-
    ically leads to removal from service, without further enquiry. Can a worker
H   be put at a higher pedestal than as the government servant? The obvious
                  J. JAISHANKAR v. GOVT. OF INDIA                     705

answer is 'No'. In view of the conviction for moral turpitude of the A
petitioner and due to conviction for an offence under Section 509 !PC, the
order of dismissal was rightly passed. The recommendation made by this
Court was made after noticing the trivial offences like traffic offences,
municipal offences and other petty offences under the !PC which do not
involve moral turpitude. This Court recommended to the Parliament to B
step in and make necessary alteration in law so that consequence of the
conviction and sentence would suitably be modulated and mitigated in the
light of the judgment. That ratio is clearly inapplicable to the facts of this
case. As a fact, on the basis of the concession made by the learned counsel
for the respondents, the Division Bench of the High Court modified the
order of dismissal to one of discharge from service without consequential C
retrial benefits but with payment of gratuity in accordance with law. The
learned single Judge was obviously in error in directing reference to the
Industrial Tribunal. We do not, therefore, find any illegality warranting
interference.

     The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.                    D

T.N.A.                                                 Petition dismissed.