Dharam Pal vs State of Haryana

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—Petitioner was employed as Clerk and after trial, he was convicted for an offence u/s 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment, besides fine, by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon. Appeal against the order of conviction was dismissed on 5.5.1999 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. On account of his misconduct which led to his conviction, order dated 3.5.2000 was passed by the Director of Employment, Haryana removing him from service. On appeal this order was affirmed by the appellate authority i.e. the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Labour and Employment Department. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of removal from service as affirmed by the appellate authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that offence u/s 325 of the Indian Penal Code did not involve any moral turpitude as per instructions contained in letter dated 17/26,3.1975 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Government of Haryana for rehabilitation of ex-convicts released from jails while dealing with the conditions for deciding their eligibility for appointment in Government service. Along with the said letter, a list of offences which involves moral turpitude was enclosed. The said list did not include Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

We find no force in this submission. The Haryana Government letter in question makes it clear that a decision has to be taken by the competent authority and though certain offences have been declared to be involving moral turpitude per se, but in respect of those which are not scarified therein, a decision has to be taken, whether or not, moral turpitude was involved. The relevant part of the aforesaid letter is extracted below :-

(iii) Ex-convicts convicted of offences involving moral turpitude should neither be taken nor retained in Government service. The following tests should ordinarily be applied in judging whether a certain offence involves moral turpitude or not :-

(1) Whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the moral conscience of society in general.

(2) Whether the motive which led to the act was a base one.

(3) Whether on account of the act having committed the perpetrator could be considered to be of depraved character or a person who was to be looked down upon by the society.

Decision in each case will however, depend upon the circumstances of the case and the competent authority has in exercise its discretion while taking a decision in accordance with the above mentioned principle. A list of offences which involve mortal turpitude is enclosed for your information and guidance. This list, however, cannot be said to be exhaustive and there might be offences which are not included in it but which in certain situations and circumstances may involve moral turpitude."

The two authorities having applied their mind and having held that the conduct of the petitioner involved moral turpitude and the petitioner was not fit to be retained in service, there is no ground to interfere in this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Mohan Singh JBT Teacher v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1990(1) RSJ 292 (P&H), and Abid Ali v. Additional Chief Secretary Home, J&K Govt of Jammu and Ors., 2000(3) SCT 75 J&K, in support of his submission that offences in Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code did not involve moral turpitude. The counsel has further relied upon Om Prakash Vs. The Director Postal Services (Posts and Telegraphs Department), Ambala and Others, ; Shankar Dass Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, ; Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, 1985(2) S.L.R. 576 and Balwan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) SCT 226 (P&H), for submitting that an employee cannot be dismissed merely on the basis of his conviction.

In Moman Singh''s case (supra), a Single Judge of this Court held that the employee as entitled to an opportunity of hearing before a decision was arrived at, whether he could be retained in service after conviction from a perusal of the record, we find it in the case of present petitioner also, a show cause notice was duly given to him, a copy of which has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-1. As far as the other cases cited by the counsel i.e. the cases of Abid Ali, Tulsi Ram Patel and Balwan Singh (supra) are concerned, the view taken therein is that conviction per se does not raise the inference to moral turpitude. Even if it is so, in the present case, the conduct of the petitioner having been seen by the authorities concerned, it cannot be said that inference of moral turpitude has been drawn without considering the facts. The cases of Om Parkash and Shankar Das (supra) are to instances where the concerned accused was let off on probation. Having regard to the facts of the present case, the decisions cited by the counsel have no application.

In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.