JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J.
1. The only aspect which the Court has to examine in this appeal is whether the Judgment on the writ petition is in error or not.
2. The Court has heard learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. S. K. Verma. Senior Advocate, and learned counsel for the respondents. Mr. S. N. Verma. Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Jayant Banerji. Advocate.
3. The petitioner's services, as an Assistant Security Officer (on probation), were terminated by the Reserve Bank of India, by an order of 30 October, 1981. The powers under which the services of the petitioner had been terminated are not so relevant as the cause. Whatever be the cause, it had nothing to do with the petitioner's services within the Bank. But there is a residuary power in the Regulations of the Reserve Bank of India given a situation or a circumstance, to dispense with the services of an officer should he border on a conduct which reflects on moral turpitude. The decree of moral turpitude has been the subject-matter of submissions on this appeal.
4. Thus, it will be necessary for the Court to reflect on the facts of the case. The petitioner and his wife. Sushma, were estranged so much so that they were living separately. A daughter was bom to them in 1974 and a son in 1976. There was an issue on the custody of the son. His estranged wife moved for custody under the Guardians and Wards Act. 1890. She recovered the custody of her son on an ex parte order which had been passed by the Court. executed with the help of the police. The son was wrested from the custody of the mother. She gave a report to the police. Consequently, a case was registered against the petitioner under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. 1860. The police could not trace out the minor son. Thus, the petitioner's wife petitioned the Delhi High Court by a habeas corpus petition. A rule nist was Issued by the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court accepted the case of the wife that the son had been unauthorlsedly taken away by the petitioner from the lawful custody of his mother, and that he was being kept under Illegal detention. Despite an order of the High Court, the petitioner declined to produce the child. The Delhi High Court held the petitioner in contempt and directed that he be taken in custody and detained in civil prison until he conforms to the order to produce the child in Court. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, by two appeals. One against the order of the Delhi High Court committing him to civil prison for contempt of court. The other was an appeal against the order of the Delhi High Court on the habeas corpus petition. The Supreme Court, in effect, substituted the order of the Delhi High Court that the petitioner be kept in detention in a civil prison until he produce the child in Court. The sentence was for three months' civil prison and a fine of Rs. 500. The petitioner's conduct came under a remark by the Supreme Court as contumacious conduct.
5. In the meantime, while this litigation between the husband and wife was In Court, reports were appearing In the newspapers that the petitioner was avoiding the warrants of the High Court and the Supreme Court. Concern was shown by the press that such a person should still be retained in service.
6. As the litigation continued and the petitioner would not conform to the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court, the Reserve Bank of India dismissed the petitioner from service in exercise of its powers under Regulation 46 sub-clause (3). The Reserve Bank of India was of the view that the petitioner had been convicted of an offence Involving gross moral turpitude within the meaning of the Regulations. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The order of dismissal was retained.
7. Not satisfied with the order of the dismissal or of the appellate authority upholding the order of the dismissal, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6269 oj 1992, Captain Dushyant Somal v. Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Bombay, and another. As before the Hon'ble Judge who delivered the Judgment on the writ petition, the submission before this Court has been that prior to the order of dismissal, the petitioner was entitled to a notice. It is contended that the fact that the petitioner has not been served with a notice putting him on a caution that action may be taken and that he may lose his service violates the rule of natural justice and an order of dismissal which has visited him is Illegal and arbitrary.
8. The dismissal of the petitioner from the services of the Bank has nothing to do with any aspect with the services of the petitioner in the administration of the Bank. The Regulation of the Reserve Bank of India does make a provision that any requirement of providing an opportunity will stand waived if the facts on the basis of which action is to he taken have been established in a Court of law or court martial or the employee has absconded.
9. The petitioner has served with the military. This Court does not have to interpret the circumstance of moral turpitude as this aspect has been dwelt with by the Hon'ble Judge in the judgment on the writ petition. The only aspect which the Court is to see whether the judgment was in error in dismissing the writ petition. Regard being had to the circumstances of the petitioner if he had been an officer with the Army, then, a conduct unbecoming a gentleman would have rendered him liable to serious proceedings under the manual of military law. Not honouring the summons and warrants of a Court violates the rule of law. The bull work of liberty in a democracy is also discipline to the rule of law. When a Court Issues a suh-peona to a person under its jurisdiction, then, it is expected that the citizen who receives such a warrant will respond to it. The petitioner was under a warrant under a writ of habeas corpus. He violated that writ. The Supreme Court confirmed the order of the High Court. Any consequential action which may have been taken by the Reserve Bank of India, a statutory body, was simply for the purpose of not having on its staff, a person who contumaciously defies the orders of the Court. The petitioner was an embarrassment to the establishment of the Bank. Its Regulations already provide that where a Court of law or a court martial has rendered its verdict after due deliberations, the question of granting any further opportunity to explain the misdemeanour does not arise.
10. A punishment for contempt by a superior court of record, which the High Court is, is a conviction no different to a conviction passed by a Court under any other law. Thus, this Court cannot interpret situations that a person who jumps a warrant or violates, or nakedly embarrasses, an order of a Court, an order of conviction may not be treated as a punishment. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides for a punishment which results in a conviction. There is no occasion for the Court to interpret it otherwise. The petitioner, no matter in what litigation he may have been involved in. virtually, invited the orders of the Court. He did not even conform, when, on his own Special Leave Petition, he received orders to conform to the orders of the High Court. He. yet. chose to take the law into his own hands.
11. It is true that the litigation between the petitioner and his wife was a matter personal between them. It is true that between the father and the mother, there was a lis to seek the custody of children. It is not for this Court to interpret the situation. If a Court of competent jurisdiction is vested with an authority to adjudicate and deliver orders, then, it expects that those who are subject to the order or judgment will render themselves subservient to it. The order of the Reserve Bank of India considering the petitioner as a person who has no respect for the law is consequential to the proceedings in Court which Judged the petitioner. The Regulations do provide for situations not to suffer staff officers who may render themselves to a conduct against the rule of law. A circumstance which reflects on moral turpitude or a conduct unbecoming a gentleman.
12. This Court does not find any error or illegality in the Judgment on the writ petition, dated 28th August, 1991.
13. The appeal is dismissed, No order on costs.