138 ni act
Santhosh Kumar
(Querist) 02 July 2025
This query is : Resolved
Hello every one
I lost my central Government job on 138 NI Act case. Now I need land mark Supreme Court citation judgments 138 NI ACT and cases are purely personal and personal private affairs, which is not related to Government of India office integrity. Because my case is on 04-06-2025 at Telangana State High Court. Please any advocate help me and save my job. For this I will ever remine thankful to the who are sharing.
Regards
Santhosh
Ex-International Volleyball Player
IAAD
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 03 July 2025
You can search for citations through internet or through your own lawyer, we don't supply judgements.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 03 July 2025
who appeal to High Court. You or department?
what was the decion of CAT.
Anyway the integrity of a govt servant is not restricted official duties. He needs to be honest all the 24 hours.
This also answers your question at
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/138-ni-act-is-personal-not-linked-to-govt-integrity-766501.asp
Advocate Bhartesh goyal
(Expert) 04 July 2025
Recently Gauhati High Court in w.p(c) 928/2015 titled as Sachin Datta vs Union of India, decided on 02-09-2024 held that
" Offence u/sec 138 N.I.Act is civil wrong and it does not involve moral turpitude so order of dismissal from service can not be based on such conviction and set.aside the order of dismissal.
G. ISAAC
(Expert) 04 July 2025
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) is considered a quasi-criminal offence. While it involves a criminal penalty (punishment of imprisonment or fine)
Despite the civil roots, Section 138 provides for criminal penalties, including imprisonment and fines.
The Supreme Court has recognized the unique nature of Section 138 proceedings, acknowledging that they are rooted in civil disputes but have criminal consequences.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 04 July 2025
Not able to fully agree.
He was central Govt employee.
He is covered by CCS(CC&A) Rules and not by TRA Service Rule as in case of Sachin Dutta vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 2 September, 2024
CCS(CC&A Rules are very clear that Rule 19(i) authorizes the disciplinary authority to award any penalty where:-
where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or
This rule does not differentiate between the cause fo conviction. Section 138 NI Act is tried in criminal court.
However the accused is entitled to make representation before the penalty is awarded though he is not entitled to chargesheet and inquiry.
Dr. J C Vashista
(Expert) 06 July 2025
Kerala High Court in the case titled R.G. Vilas Kumar vs The Food Corporation Of India (2015)
Para 8 to 10 of the judgment are relevant in your query which reads as:
8. The conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has to be differentiated from the offences. The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is, in fact, a technical offence in the sense on account of certain contingency if the cheque has to be dishonoured, the drawer of the cheque is liable to be punished under law. If the conviction is for the sole reason that the cheque happened to be dishonoured for want of sufficient fund, it does not involve any moral turpitude, one may become poorer after issuance of the cheque. The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be classified one coming under Annexure to Rule 14 as above. Annexure to Rule 14 in C.C.S.(C.C.A) Rules classify types of cases which may meant action for imposing major penalty.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that such a breach to honour cheque would entail in an offence of moral turpitude. The technical offence in law is understood on account of qualifying certain technical parameters as contemplated in law to attract the offence. Therefore, such offences are more of quasi penal offence and not in offences as understood in general law. The petitioner has been imposed with major penalty of reversion taking note of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the retention of the petitioner in the public service found undesirable. In Kaushalya Devi Massand v. Roopkishore Khore [(2011) 4 SCC 593], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that offence under Section 138 of the "Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be equated with offence under Indian Penal Code. It is almost in nature of civil wrong having criminal overtones."
10. I am of the view, such finding is unsustainable, unless, it is found that the petitioner's conviction as a result of the prosecution against him for any offence of moral turpitude. The retention in public service, necessarily, presuppose that public servant's personal credibility among general public is not lowered due to involvement in any offence of moral turpitude. It refers to thought, action and mind of the public servant to result in lower the image. The disciplinary proceedings without adverting to the findings of the criminal court to hold that retention of the petitioner in the public service is undesirable, is therefore, illegal.
