THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS versus P. SOUPRAMANIANE

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS versus P. SOUPRAMANIANE

On the facts, the respondent's conviction under Section 324 IPC for causing simple injuries did not amount to an offence involving moral turpitude; therefore the discharge under Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 was not sustainable and the High Court's order setting aside the discharge is affirmed; criminal court's probation order does not bind the employer.

Parties
Appellants: THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS; Respondent: P. SOUPRAMANIANE
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No.7011 of 2009 / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court on Appeal (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Madras High Court dated 12.03.2008 in Writ Appeal No.1117 of 2001 affirmed.
Legal Topics
Moral Turpitude, Conviction and Employment, Discharge From Service, Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Section 324 IPC
Banking Regulation Act Criminal Law Service Law Moral Turpitude Conviction and Employment Discharge From Service Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 Section 324 IPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS

Appellants

P. SOUPRAMANIANE

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No.7011 of 2009 / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court on Appeal (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conviction under Section 324 IPC constituted an offence involving moral turpitude for the purposes of Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949
  2. 2 Whether the employer was bound by the criminal court's order of release on probation allowing the employee to continue in service
  3. 3 Whether the bank had given adequate reasons and followed procedure in discharging the employee

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts, the respondent's conviction under Section 324 IPC for causing simple injuries did not amount to an offence involving moral turpitude; therefore the discharge under Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 was not sustainable and the High Court's order setting aside the discharge is affirmed; criminal court's probation order does not bind the employer.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Madras High Court dated 12.03.2008 in Writ Appeal No.1117 of 2001 affirmed.

Orders

  • Civil Appeal No.7011 of 2009 dismissed
  • Judgment of the High Court dated 12.03.2008 in Writ Appeal No.1117 of 2001 affirmed (which had set aside the order of discharge and directed reinstatement and payment of 1/4th salary as back wages)