Karnataka High Court

Sri.G. Nanjegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2025

Author: S.G.Pandit

Bench: S.G.Pandit

                             1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

  DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025

                     PRESENT

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT
                        AND
      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND

R.P.No.254/2025 IN W.P.No.32786/2024 (S-KSAT)
                     C/W
          W.P.No.31719/2024 (S-KSAT)

R.P.No.254/2025 IN W.P.No.32786/2024

BETWEEN:

SRI.G. NANJEGOWDA
S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
SDA AT THE OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
AND TRAINING,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
NO.19, MAIN ROAD, 16TH CROSS,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA,
BANGALORE-560098
(UNDER HE ORDER OF DISMISSAL)

R/AT NO.54, SAIPRIYA LAYOUT,
JANAPRIYA DIVISION, KADABAGERE
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-562130.
                                    ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI BABU RAO M., ADV.)
                            2



AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
     EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
     (SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY)
     M S BUILDING
     DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
     BANGALORE-560001.

2.   THE COMMISSIONER OF
     PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
     NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
     BANGALORE-560001.

3.   THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF
     PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
     NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
     BANGALORE-560001.
                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. B RAVINDRANATH, AGA)

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION. 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2025 PASSED IN WP NO.32786/24 PASSED BY THIS COURT AND TO RESTORE THE WRIT PETITION ON THE FILE AND TO DISPOSE THE WRIT PETITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

BETWEEN:

SRI G GIRISH S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, POLICE CONSTABLE (UNDER ORDERS OF DISMISSAL) RESIDING AT KOTTAGARAHALLI

MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT- 562120.

...PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATRI, ADV.)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001.

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KARNATAKA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001.

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001.

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE WEST DIVISION, R T NAGAR BANGALORE - 560032.

...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B RAVINDRANATH, AGA)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25/10/2024 IN A.NO.858/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ALLOW THE A.NO.858/2024 AND ETC.

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 04.09.2025 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND

CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The petitioner is before this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order

dated 25.10.2024 in Application No.858/2024 passed

by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at

Bengaluru (for short "Tribunal") wherein the

petitioner's challenge to the endorsement dated

15.12.2023 (Annexure-A12) rejecting his request for

reinstatement and to continue him in service; the

endorsement dated 20.06.2023 (Annexure-A10)

rejecting the petitioner's request for reinstatement

and continuation of his service and also to quash the

O.M. dated 02.02.2013, the penalty order of dismissal

passed under Rule 14(1) of Karnataka State Police

(Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965 read with

Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, dispensing

enquiry.

2. The relevant facts in W.P.No.31719/2024 are

that, the petitioner while working as Police Constable

in Subramanya Nagara Police Station, a complaint

came to be filed in Magadi Police Station against the

petitioner and others under Sections 143, 147, 148,

114, 324, 326, 427 and 506 read with Section 149 of

the IPC. After trial, the Principal Civil Judge and

JMFC, Magadi in C.C.No.279/2001, by judgment dated

13.01.2011 convicted the petitioner and others for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,

324, 326, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC,

imposing punishment of simple imprisonment for a

period of 2 years with fine. Aggrieved by the said

judgment dated 13.01.2011, the petitioner preferred

Criminal Appeal No.10/2011 before the Additional

District and Sessions Judge, which came to be

dismissed on 18.04.2016. Aggrieved by the dismissal

of the appeal, the petitioner preferred Criminal

Revision Petition No.626/2016 before this Court.

3. Respondent No.3 herein passed an order on

28.02.2011 under Rule 14(1) of the CCA Rules,

dismissing the petitioner on account of conviction in

the criminal case without conducting any

departmental enquiry. The petitioner approached

the Tribunal in Application No.1172/2011, which came

to be allowed on 02.02.2012 with a direction to

reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith.

Aggrieved thereby, the State Authorities approached

this Court in W.P.No.28303/2012, which came to be

allowed by this Court on 03.09.2012, setting aside the

order of the Tribunal. However, the order of

dismissal passed by the Commissioner was set aside,

reserving liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to

consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with

law, in the light of the observations made therein.

Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order

dated 02.02.2013 (Annexure-A6) dismissing the

petitioner from service invoking Article 311(2) of the

Constitution of India read with Rule 14(1) of KSP (DP)

Rules.

4. Criminal Appeal No.10/2011 filed against the

order dated 13.01.2011 in C.C.No.279/2001 was

dismissed vide order dated 18.04.2016. Aggrieved by

the dismissal, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.626/2016

against the conviction, which was partly allowed by

this Court by order dated 13.04.2023, modifying the

sentence to that of fine for the offences punishable

under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 427 and 506 of

IPC. Thereafter the petitioner submitted a

representation dated 24.04.2023, bringing to the

notice of the respondent-authorities the modification

of sentence of imprisonment to that of fine, with a

request to reinstate and continue him in service. The

petitioner was issued with endorsements dated

20.06.2023 and 15.12.2023 which were the subject

matter of Application No.858/2024. The Tribunal,

under impugned order rejected the petitioner's

application and his prayer for reinstatement, holding

that conviction of the petitioner was never modified

and it remains as it is and what is modified is only the

penalty. When the conviction order is still operating

against the petitioner, the question of reinstatement

would not arise. Questioning the said order of the

Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ

petition.

5. In R.P.No.254/2025, the petitioner is before this

Court under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC praying to

review the order dated 21.04.2025 in

W.P.No.32786/2024, whereunder the petitioner's

challenge to the order dated 25.10.2024 in Application

No.859/2024 passed by the Tribunal, refusing to set

aside the order of dismissal from service, is rejected.

6. The petitioner herein was also involved in the

same offence as alleged against the petitioner in the

above stated writ petition and the petitioner was

convicted in C.C.No.279/2001 by order dated

13.01.2011 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC.,

Magadi, for the offences punishable under Sections

143, 147, 148, 326, 324, 427 and 506 read with 34 of

IPC imposing punishment of simple imprisonment for

a period of two years. Based on the said conviction,

the petitioner was dismissed form service on

19.08.2017. The petitioner preferred appeal before

the District and Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal

No.10/2011 challenging conviction, which came to be

dismissed on 18.04.2016. Thereafter, the review

petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition

No.626/2016, and this Court by judgment dated

13.04.2023, modified the sentence to that of fine

while confirming the conviction. Thereafter, the

petitioner is said to have submitted a representation

requesting reinstatement into service. However, the

said request was dismissed under endorsement dated

18.11.2023, which was the subject matter before the

Tribunal in Application No.859/2024, which was

dismissed. Against which, the petitioner had filed

W.P.No.32786/2024 which was also dismissed by this

Court. Against the said order, the present review

petition is filed.

7. Heard learned counsel Sri.Raghavendra G.

Gayathri for petitioner in W.P.No.31719/2024 and

Sri.M.Babu Rao, learned counsel for review petitioner

in Review Petition No.254/2025 as well as learned

Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath

for respondents. Perused the entire petition papers.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

that the petitioners were dismissed only on the ground

that both the petitioners were convicted in

C.C.No.279/2001 for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 324, 427 and 506 read

with Section 34 of IPC, without examining as to

whether the same is conviction for an offence

involving moral turpitude. It is submitted that this

Court, in the Criminal Revision Petition, based on the

material on record, came to the conclusion that PW1

to PW4 had suffered only simple injuries and therefore

modified the sentence from imprisonment to that of

fine. Learned counsels, taking us through the

judgment passed by this Court in the Criminal

Revision Petition, would submit that the question

involved here is whether the conviction of the

petitioners under Section 324 of IPC could be said to

be an offence involving moral turpitude in the facts of

the present case.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to

the judgment of this Court in the Criminal Revision

Petition, would submit that, on account of modifying

the sentence to that of fine, the penalty would be

lesser when compared to imprisonment. Mere

imposition of a fine for an offence would not be

serious or would not amount to offence involving the

moral turpitude. Learned counsels would also submit

that though Rule 14 of CCA Rules would empower the

State Authorities to dismiss a Government servant

who has suffered conviction, but such dismissal on

conviction could be only for an offence which involves

moral turpitude.

10. Learned counsel Sri.Raghavendra G Gayathri

placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v/s

P.SOUPRAMANIANE reported in (2019)18 SCC

135 to contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid

down tests that could be applied for judging an

offence whether it involves moral turpitude or not. By

applying the said test, it is submitted that the offence

alleged against the petitioners would not constitute an

offence of moral turpitude. It is further submitted

that in the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court taking

note of the fact that the injuries caused to the victims

were simple in nature and taking note of overall

consideration of the case, held that the crime

committed in the said case does not involve moral

turpitude. In the same lines, learned counsels would

pray for allowing the present petition and to reinstate

the petitioners into service.

11. Learned AAG would submit that since the

conviction is not set aside and only sentence is

reduced, the petitioners would not be entitled for

reinstatement. Further, learned AAG would submit

that one of the offences proved is under Section 324

of IPC i.e., voluntarily causing hurt by using

dangerous weapons or means. It is submitted that

conviction for offence under Section 324 IPC is not set

aside. As such, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting

their applications as well as respondents are justified

in dismissing petitioners on their conviction. Thus, it

is prayed to dismiss both the writ petitions.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and upon perusal of the entire petition papers, the

following points would arise for our consideration:

(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the offences alleged against the petitioners would involve moral turpitude?

(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is

justified in rejecting the applications of the petitioners?

13. Answer to both the points would be in the

negative, for the following reasons:

The petitioner in W.P.No.31791/2024 as well as

the review petitioner in R.P.No.254/2024 were

working as a Police Constable and as a Second

Division Assistant respectively. While working as

such, on a complaint by one Sri.Narayan @

Thimmegowda before the Magadi Police Station, a

crime was registered against the petitioners and

others under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 324, 326,

427 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.

Registration of the said case is not with regard to

discharge of their duties as government servants. The

crime was converted into C.C.No.279/2001 and trial

was conducted. After trial, the petitioners were

convicted for the offences punishable under Sections

143, 147, 148, 326, 324, 427 and 506 read with

Section 34 of IPC. The appeal filed by the petitioners

in Crl.A.No.10/2011 was dismissed by judgment dated

18.04.2016. However, Crl.R.P.No.626/2016 filed

before this Court was partly allowed and the

conviction passed against the petitioners under

Section 326 of IPC was set aside, while confirming

their conviction for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 427 and 506 read with

Section 34 of IPC. However, the sentence of

imprisonment was modified and reduced to payment

of fine.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in STATE BANK OF

INDIA (supra) while considering the case of

dismissal of a Bank employee for conviction under

Section 324 of IPC, at paragraphs 12 to 16 has

observed as follows:

12. There is no doubt that there is an obligation on the management of the Bank to discontinue the services of an employee who has been convicted by a criminal court for an offence involving moral turpitude. [Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Punjab National Bank, (2010) 8 SCC 573 :

(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 674] Though every offence is a crime against the society, discontinuance from service according to the Banking Regulation Act can be only for committing an offence involving moral turpitude. Acts which disclose depravity and wickedness of character can be categorised as offences involving moral turpitude. Whether an offence involves moral turpitude or not depends upon the facts [Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola, (1997) 4 SCC 1 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 897] and the circumstances [Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1996) 4 SCC 17, para 12 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 583] of the case.

13. 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. Chhakki Lal, 1962 SCC OnLine All 215 : AIR 1963 All 527]

14. The other important factors that are to be kept in mind to conclude that an offence involves moral turpitude are : the person who commits the offence; the person against whom it is committed; the manner and circumstances in which it is alleged to have been committed; and the values of the society. [Jorabhai Hirabhai Rabari v. Distt. Development Officer, 1995 SCC OnLine Guj 117 : AIR 1996 Guj 3]

15. According to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), a crime data collection system used in the United States of America, each offence belongs to one of the three categories which are : crimes against persons, crimes against property, and crimes against society. Crimes against persons include murder, rape, and

assault where the victims are always individuals. The object of crimes against property, for example, robbery and burglary is to obtain money, property, or some other benefits. Crimes against society, for example, gambling, prostitution, and drug violations, represent society's prohibition against engaging in certain types of activities. Conviction of any alien of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for deportation under the Immigration Law in the United States of America. To qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude for such purpose, it requires both reprehensible conduct and scienter, whether with specific intent, deliberateness, wilfulness or recklessness. [Cristoval Silva- Trevina, In re, 24 I&N Dec 687 (AG 2008)]

16. 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, the NDPS Act, etc. The question that arises for our consideration in this case is whether an offence involving bodily injury can be categorised as a crime involving moral turpitude. In this case, we are concerned with an assault. It is very difficult to state that every assault is not an offence

involving moral turpitude. A simple assault is different from an aggravated assault. All cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorised 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. In the instant case, there was no motive for the respondent to cause the death of the victims. The criminal courts below found that the injuries caused to the victims were simple in nature. On an overall consideration of the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the crime committed by the respondent does not involve moral turpitude. As the respondent is not guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude, he is not liable to be discharged from service.

15. In the above said decision, the Hon'ble Apex

Court has laid down tests that can be applied for

judging whether an offence involves moral turpitude

or not. While judging an offence as to whether it

involves moral turpitude, the Court shall have to

examine whether the act leading to conviction was

such as to shock the moral conscience or Society in

general; whether the motive which led to the Act was

a base one and whether the character of the

perpetrators was such that he would be looked down

upon by the Society. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the

above stated SBI case has observed that a simple

assault is different from an aggravated assault. All

cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorized

as crimes involving moral turpitude.

16. Keeping in mind the above principle, if the act of

the petitioners is examined in the light of the

judgment of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.626/2016 and

other connected revision petitions dated 13.04.2016,

it is seen that the accused persons have been

acquitted of the charges against them under Section

326 of IPC. Moreover, paragraph 32 of the judgment

in the above stated Criminal Revision Petition clearly

records that P.W.1 and P.W.4 had suffered only simple

injuries and that the courts below were justified in

convicting the accused for the offences punishable

under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 427 and 506 of

IPC. Section 324 of IPC under which the conviction

was made requires causing hurt by dangerous

weapons or means. There is no evidence on record

before the criminal court also to show as to dangerous

weapons used by the accused persons or petitioners

with an intention to cause grievous hurt or otherwise.

In terms of the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court, a simple assault is different from an aggravated

assault and all cases of assault or simple hurt cannot

be categorized as crimes involving moral turpitude.

17. The Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the

applications by concluding that the conviction of the

petitioners was not set aside and only the sentence

was modified to that of fine, without examining as to

whether the conviction of the petitioner was for

offence involving moral turpitude or alleged offences

would amount to an offence involving moral turpitude.

Further, the Tribunal is not justified in placing reliance

on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

K.C.SAREEN V/S CBI, Chandigarh reported in

AIR 2001 SC 3320. The said SAREEN case involved

conviction of a government servant for corruption

charges. In the instant case, the conviction is not for

an offence committed during the course of

employment, but outside the scope of service.

18. This Court while dismissing W.P.No.32786/2024

held that the petitioners were convicted for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,

326, 324, 427 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC

without examining as to whether those offences would

amount to offences involving moral turpitude.

19. Non-consideration of the said ground in the facts

of the present case would amount to an error

apparent on the face of record in terms of Order XLVII

Rule 1 of CPC which would enable this Court to review

the order. Moreover, the petitioner in

W.P.No.31791/2024 and petitioner in Review Petition

are similarly placed and further both of them are

convicted and their sentence is reduced in the same

Criminal Revision Petition. In that light of the matter,

review petitioner would be entitled for the same relief

which the Petitioner in W.P.No.31791/2024 would be

entitled to.

20. For the reasons recorded above, the following

order:

      (i)      W.P.No.31791/2024 is allowed.

      (ii)     The order dated 25.10.2024 in Application

No.858/2024 passed by the Tribunal is set aside.

Consequently, the impugned endorsement bearing No.

Appeal(4)19/2023-24 dated 15.12.2023 and

endorsement bearing No.16/¹§âA¢-3/¸ÀA.¥À.«/2011

dated 20.06.2023 are quashed, with a direction to the

respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as

Police Constable, with continuity of service for all

purposes, except backwages.

(iv) R.P.No.254/2024 is allowed.

     (v)    The         order      dated      21.04.2025       in

W.P.No.32786/2024          is     reviewed.      Consequently,

W.P.No.32786/2024 is allowed.                 The order dated

25.10.2024 in Application No.859/2024 passed by the

Tribunal is set aside. Endorsement bearing

No.¹5(6)¸ÉÃ.¥ÀÄ.ªÀÄ£À«/02/2023-24 dated 18.11.2023 and

endorsement bearing No.¹5(6)¸ÉÃ.¥ÀÄ.ªÀÄ£À«/02/2023-24

dated 14.06.2023 and order of dismissal bearing No.

¹5(6) zÀÆgÀÄ 10/2013-14 dated 19.08.2017 are quashed,

with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the

petitioner into service as Second Division Assistant,

with continuity of service for all purposes, except

backwages.

Time for compliance: three months from the

date of uploading the order on the website of the High