Swarn Singh Vs. State Bank of India and anr. - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/660077 |
| Subject | Service |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Decided On | Sep-29-1986 |
| Case Number | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7783 of 1986 |
| Judge | A.P. Sen and; B.C. Ray, JJ. |
| Reported in | 1986Supp(1)SCC566 |
| Acts | Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section - 4; Punjab Excise Act, 1914 - Section 61(1)(a) |
| Appellant | Swarn Singh |
| Respondent | State Bank of India and anr. |
| Disposition | SLP Dismissed |
| Cases Referred | In Shanker Das v. Union of India
|
Excerpt:
.....an offence punishable under section 61(1)(a) of the punjab excise act, 1914 stood removed by section 12 of the act, cannot prevail. in that case the court has laid down that conviction on a criminal charge was not a disqualification falling within the purview of section 12 of the act......in shankar dass v. union of india1. in that case the court has laid down that conviction on a criminal charge was not a disqualification falling within the purview of section 12 of the act. it also referred to clause (a) of the second proviso to article 311(2) of the constitution which confers a power on the government to dismiss a person “on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge”. it cannot therefore be said that the state bank of india could not take recourse to section 10(1)(b)(i) of the banking regulations act, 1949 in directing the removal from service of the petitioner upon his conviction under section 61(1)(a) of the act as he was guilty of conduct which led to his conviction by the criminal court involving moral turpitude.2......
Judgment:A.P. Sen and; B.C. Ray, JJ.
1. The contention that the petitioner having been released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the disqualification attaching to his conviction for having committed an offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 stood removed by Section 12 of the Act, cannot prevail. The matter is concluded by the recent decision of this Court in Shankar Dass v. Union of India1. In that case the court has laid down that conviction on a criminal charge was not a disqualification falling within the purview of Section 12 of the Act. It also referred to clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution which confers a power on the government to dismiss a person “on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge”. It cannot therefore be said that the State Bank of India could not take recourse to Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 in directing the removal from service of the petitioner upon his conviction under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act as he was guilty of conduct which led to his conviction by the criminal court involving moral turpitude.
2. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.