Satyavan Singh vs The State of Haryana

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—The petitioner was selected as a Driver on the basis of interview and driving test, held on 13th December, 1988 and he joined as such on 30th December, 1988. However, on the basis of verification of the petitioner''s antecedents, it was revealed that the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/336, Indian Penal Code and his services were terminated with effect from 16th May, 1989.

Aggrieved by the order of his termination dated 16th May, 1989, Annexure P-5, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, impugning the order on the ground that the alleged offence committed by the petitioner did not constitute moral turpitude. The petitioner relied on the Government letter, dated 2nd February, 1973, Annexure P-7, issued by the Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana, to all heads of Departments, is which offence allegedly committed by the petitioner does not fall in the list of offences which constitute moral turpitude.

The plea of the State is that the appointment of the petitioner was subject to verification of character/antecedents, and on verification of the same, it was found that he was convicted of offence under Sections 279/336, Indian Penal Code, as such his services were terminated.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On consideration of the entire matter, I find that the matter is squarely covered by this Court''s decision rendered in Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana,1, 1992 (1) R.S . J. 175. I have also perused Government letter, Annexure P-7. It finds mention of the offences which constitute moral turpitude under the various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Haryana Government has stressed the need of rehabilitation of convicts who are not involved in cases of serious nature. The convicts who are not guilty of offences involving moral turpitude are to be rehabilitated and taken into government services.

I find that the alleged offence committed by the petitioner does not fall within the purview of offences which constitute moral turpitude. As such the action of the respondents discontinuing the services of the petitioner cannot be said to be justified and the impugned order, Annexure P-5, cannot be sustained being contrary to the said policy instructions of the Government contained in letter Annexure P-7.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, Annexure P-5, dated 16th May, 1989, is quashed. The petitioner is to be taken in service with continuity of service. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages. The parties to bear their own costs.