TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1487
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging an order of dismissal from service dated 17.10.2014 which has also been upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 08.12.2014. The subsequent representation of the petitioner not yielding any positive results, he has approached this Court for redressal of his grievance. 2. As per the facts projected in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed, initially as a Cleaner Boy on 08.05.1986 in the Tea Research Association, Tocklai Tea Research Institute, Jorhat. Subsequently, vide order dated 01.04.2006, he was promoted to Grade Ad 1(3). While serving as such, a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted against h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the petitioners were not followed at all. Thirdly, a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act do not constitute a charge of moral turpitude, so as to attract any clause of the Rules. 5. Shri Mannan, learned counsel has submitted that a delinquent facing a proceeding is entitled to have the protection of law and a reasonable opportunity is to be afforded to him before any order of penalty is imposed upon him. He further submits that there was no charge framed against the petitioner and only on 15.10.2014 an order of suspension from service was issued followed by the impugned order of dismissal just after two days i.e. 17.10.2014. It is submitted that though in an earlier disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C 593. 6. Per contra, Ms. Barman, learned counsel for the contesting respondent nos. 2 to 5 has submitted that the track record of the petitioner as an employee of the Tea Research Institute is not clean and there were previous instances wherein he was penalized. Specific reference has been made to an order dated 31.12.2013 whereby the petitioner was demoted from the post held by him to a lower post. It is submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and therefore continuance of the petitioner in the Institution would not be in the interest of justice. The learned counsel for the respondents has however fairly conceded that there was no enquiry before the impugned order of dismissal. 7. The rival submissions have been duly conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the TRA Service Rule, this Court has carefully looked into the aforesaid provisions. Under Clause 7.3.41, it is provided that disciplinary action can be taken if there is a conviction by a Court of law for any offence involving moral turpitude. For ready reference, the same is extracted hereinbelow- "7.3.41- Conviction by any court of law of any offence involving moral turpitude." The question therefore arises as to whether a conviction of an employee under the Negotiable Instruments Act would involve moral turpitude. 10. Clause 7.3.41 can be invoked only when there is a conviction of an offence involving moral turpitude. When the conviction is not for an offence involving moral turpitude, the aforesaid clause would not be applicable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the term moral turpitude "does not refer to conduct which, before it was made punishable as a crime, was generally regarded as morally wrong or corrupt, as offensive to the moral sense as ordinarily developed." 13. In the case of Kaushalya Devi Massand (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid won as follows: "9. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the gravity of a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be equated with an offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or other criminal offences. An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is almost in the nature of a civil wrong which has been given criminal overtones. ..." 14. T....