The Punjab and Haryana High Court said that there is no clear and uniform rule that every conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC is an offence involving moral turpitude. Based on this, the court cancelled the State Bank of India’s order that had removed an officer from service.
The court also directed the bank to give all benefits to the officer from December 1, 2018. It also ordered the bank to pay 6% annual interest within two months.
The petitioner, Brahmjeet Kaushal, through his lawyer Karnail Singh, challenged the bank’s order dated June 27, 2019. The order had removed him from service from December 14, 2018.
The lawyer said that when the petitioner was working as a Branch Manager in Panipat, an FIR was filed against him in 2000. The case included Sections 304-B, 406, and 498-A of the IPC. The allegations were related to dowry demand and abetment to suicide.
💡 Did You Know?
- Rise in Cases: Divorce filings are increasing, with metro city rates nearly 3x higher than the national average.
- Early Breakdown: Around 40% of divorces happen within the first 3 years of marriage.
- Regional Trends: Maharashtra (18.7%), Karnataka (11.7%), and Delhi (7.7%) have the highest separation rates.
- High Pendency: Over 36,000 divorce cases are pending in some courts as of 2025.
- Alimony & Finance: 42% of men took loans for alimony; courts have awarded up to ₹75,000/month.
In 2002, the sessions court cleared him of charges under Sections 304-B and 406. However, he was found guilty under Section 498-A. He was sentenced to three years of imprisonment and fined Rs 5,000.
After this, the bank removed him from service. The bank said that the conviction was an offence involving moral turpitude under Rule 68(7)(i) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992.
The lawyer argued that the bank did not properly explain how this case involved moral turpitude. He said the matter was related to a matrimonial dispute.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil noted that the bank removed the officer only because of the conviction. The bank did not conduct a departmental inquiry and did not give the officer a chance to explain.
The court also said that “moral turpitude” is not clearly defined in law or service rules. It added that cases related to matrimonial disputes do not automatically mean serious wrongdoing.
Finally, the court allowed the petition. It cancelled the bank’s order and directed the bank to restore all benefits with interest within the given time.
