Surapad was a clerical level employee working with a public sector bank in Calicut. He was convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude and dismissed from service. He approached the employee staff union for support.

The facts of the given case are similar to the State Bank of India & ORS vs. P. Soupramaniane . In this case, it was observed by the Supreme Court that we do not agree with the reasons given by the High Court for setting aside the order of discharge and directing the reinstatement of the Respondent in service. A show cause notice was issued to the Respondent in which it was categorically mentioned that the Respondent cannot continue in service after his conviction in a criminal case involving moral turpitude in view of Section 10(1) (b) (i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. After considering the explanation of the Respondent, an order of discharge was passed. The High Court is not right in holding that no reasons had been given by the bank for discontinuing the Respondent from service. The High Court committed an error in holding that the order of discharge should be set aside on the ground that the provision of law under which the Respondent was discharged was not mentioned in the order. Yet another reason given by the High Court for interference with the order of discharge is that the criminal court released the Respondent on probation only to permit him to continue in service. The release under probation does not entitle an employee to claim a right to continue in service. In fact the employer is under an obligation to discontinue the services of an employee convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. The observations made by a criminal court are not binding on the employer who has the liberty of dealing with his employees suitably. Though we do not agree with the reasons given by the High Court for setting aside the order of discharge of the Respondent from service, it is necessary to examine whether Section 10 (1) (b) (i) of Banking Regulation Act is applicable to the facts of the case. Conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude disqualifies a person from continuing in service in a bank. The conundrum that arises in this case is whether the conviction of the Respondent under Section 324 IPC can be said to be for an offence involving moral turpitude. There can be no matter of doubt about certain offences which can straightaway be termed as involving moral turpitude e.g. offences under the Prevention of Corruption of Act, NDPS Act, etc. The question that arises for our consideration in this case is whether an offence involving bodily injury can be categorized as a crime involving moral turpitude. In this case, we are concerned with an assault. It is very difficult to state that every assault is not an offence involving moral turpitude. A simple assault is different from an aggravated assault. All cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorized as crimes involving moral turpitude. On the other hand, the use of a dangerous weapon which can cause the death of the victim may result in an offence involving moral turpitude. In the instant case, there was no motive for the Respondent to cause the death of the victims. The criminal courts below found that the injuries caused to the victims were simple in nature. On an overall consideration of the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the crime committed by the Respondent does not involve moral turpitude. As the Respondent is not guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude, he is not liable to be discharged from service. For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the judgment of the High Court. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly. In the given situation, there is no doubt that the conviction is for an offence involving moral turpitude and conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude disqualifies a person from continuing in service in a bank. Therefore, the challenge of the staff union may not succeed.