Ram Chander vs The State of Haryana and another

Augustine George Masih, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 11.02.2010 (Annexure P-4) vide which Director, Department of Industries, Haryana has terminated his services. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed on the post of skilled Worker in the office of Heat Treatment Centre, Faridabad on ad hoc basis through Employment office, Bahadurgarh on 1.6.1978. Services of the petitioner were transferred to the Labour Department on 17.2.2004 and thereafter he was repatriated to his parent Department on 19.01.2010. In the year 1984, petitioner''s name figured in FIR No. 200/1984, Police Station Narela. A trial was held wherein petitioner was acquitted by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated 3.6.1989. Against the said judgment of acquittal, The State (Delhi Administration) preferred an appeal, namely, Crl. Appeal No. 9 of 1990 State (Delhi Administration) vs. Narain Singh and others, before the High Court, Delhi, which vide judgment dated 16.04.2007 convicted the petitioner under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 as also Section 452 IPC. As regards the question of quantum of sentence, since the petitioner was found to have already remained for some period in jail, he was awarded sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. For conviction u/s 452 IPC, a fine of Rs. 500/-was imposed which the petitioner deposited. Petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 1.10.1984 and on his acquittal by the trial Court, he was reinstated into service on 9.8.1996. However, on his conviction by the Delhi High Court, petitioner was served a show cause notice dated 1.1.2010 as to why his services be not terminated on his conviction, to which the petitioner responded. Director of Industries and Commerce, Haryana terminated the services of the petitioner vide order dated 11.2.2010 (Annexure P-4) on the basis of his conviction. It is against this order that the petitioner has approached this Court primarily basing his reliance upon the instructions dated 26.3.1975 (Annexure P-5), according to which Section 323 and 324 as also Section 452 IPC are not stated to be offences involving moral turpitude. Reliance has also been placed on an order passed by this Court in CWP No. 1254 of 1994 decided on 17.5.1994 (Annexure P-6) wherein this Court relying upon these very instructions dated 26.3.1975 (Annexure P-5) has held that mere involvement in an offence u/s 323/324 IPC would not render a person ineligible for appointment to the post as it does not involve moral turpitude.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued his case on these very lines and has submitted that the impugned order cannot sustain.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the instructions dated 26.3.1975 (Annexure P-5) are mere guidelines and would not have a binding force as far as the present case is concerned as it is the conduct of the employee which has to be seen and the nature of offence in which he is being involved. His submission is that although offences u/s 323, 324 and 452 IPC have not been mentioned in the annexure appended with the instructions but since the petitioner was involved along with others in an offence u/s 302 IPC and one of the co-accused has been convicted under the said Section and sentenced for life imprisonment, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Counsel, accordingly supports the impugned order.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.

Facts as have been narrated above are not in dispute. The question which requires to be considered and decided is whether the act and conduct of the petitioner was such so as to bring him within the ambit of the expression "moral turpitude" disentitling him to the benefit of the instructions dated 26.3.1975 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Government of Haryana.

Keeping in light the judgment of the Delhi High Court, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure P-7 with the writ petition and the role attributed to the petitioner, petitioner''s case would not fall within the expression moral turpitude which would debar him from getting the benefit of the instructions dated 26.3.1975 (Annexure P-5). It is an admitted position that Sections 323, 324 and 452 IPC are not mentioned as serious offences involving moral turpitude in the annexure which has been appended with the instructions (Annexure P-5).

In the light of the above, the impugned order dated 11.02.2010 (Annexure P-4) cannot sustain and is hereby set aside.

Counsel for the petitioner has very candidly stated that the petitioner shall not claim any back wages for the period his services remained terminated till today.

In the light of statement made by the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is held not entitled to the pay and allowances of the said period, however, he shall be entitled to all other consequential benefits. Writ petition is allowed in the above terms.