“Respondent who was working with State Bank of India at Puducherry was discharged from service for an offence involving moral turpitude. Whether an offence involves moral turpitude or not depends upon the facts and the circumstances of the case. Ordinarily, the tests that can be applied for judging an offence involving moral turpitude are: a) whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the moral conscience or society in general; b) whether the motive which led to the act was a base one, and c) whether on account of the act having been committed the perpetrators could be considered to be of a depraved character or a person who was to be looked down upon by the society [Mangali v. Chakki Lal, AIR 1963 ALL 527]. There can be no manner 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. In this case, we are concerned with an 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. Respondent is not guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude; he is not liable to be discharged from service.”
– Hon’ble Justice L. Nageswara Rao, The State Bank of India v. P. Soupramaniane, [Civil Appeal No. 7011 of 2009].