Jagdish Singh Jatav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8 MP

            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH                       1
                         WP 8154 of 2020
            Jagdish Singh Jatav vs. State of MP and Others

Gwalior, Dated :21/01/2021

       Shri Vibhor Kumar Sahu, counsel for the petitioner.

       Shri Abhishek Singh Bhadoriya, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/ State.

This petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed

against the order dated 04/05/2020 passed by the Director, Public Education,

MP, Bhopal, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of

dismissal issued by the Joint Director, Public Education, Division Gwalior on

23/01/2020, has been dismissed.

The necessary facts for disposal of present petition in short are that the

petitioner was working as Upper Division Clerk in Government Girls Higher

Secondary School, Gohad, District Bhind. He was convicted by judgment dated

17/06/2019 passed by JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No.166/2016 for offene

under Sections 341, 323/34 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo the rigorous

imprisonment of three months and a fine of Rs.500/-. Criminal Appeal filed by

the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Court by judgment dated

07/09/2019. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal, the petitioner has

filed a Criminal Revision before this Court and by order dated 16/09/2019, his

sentence has been suspended. The petitioner also remained in custody from

07/09/2019 to 16/09/2019.

Challenging the impugned orders passed by the authorities, it is submitted

by the counsel for the petitioner that even if the petitioner has been convicted for

offence under Sections 323, 341, 34 of IPC but the offence committed by the

WP 8154 of 2020 Jagdish Singh Jatav vs. State of MP and Others

petitioner does not involve moral turpitude, therefore, the respondents have

committed a mistake by terminating the services of the petitioner.

Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

Rule 19 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Rules, 1966 (In short Rules 1966), which provides for special procedure in

certain cases, to which reliance has been placed by the appellants does not appear

to be applicable in the instant case. The said Rule reads thus:

"19. Special procedure in certain cases.--Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 14 to Rule 18--

(i) where any penalty is imposed on a government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or

(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules, or

(iii) where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit:

Provided that the Commission shall be consulted where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this Rule."

From plain reading of Rule 19(i) of Rules 1966, it is clear that the

departmental enquiry can be dispensed with in the case of the conduct of an

employee which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. However, it

would be too harsh to hold that the employer is not entitled to consider the

circumstances of the criminal case, and in spite of the nature of the offence, the

employer has to issue an order of dismissal.

WP 8154 of 2020 Jagdish Singh Jatav vs. State of MP and Others

The Supreme Court in the case of The State Bank of India Vs. P.

Soupramaniane by judgment dated 26-4-2019 passed in C.A. NO. 7011 of 2019

has held as under :-

''9. 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. The question that arises for our consideration in this case is whether an offence involving bodily injury can be categorized 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 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. 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.''

Thus, it is clear that if an employee has been convicted for an offence

involving moral turpitude, then he can be dismissed from his service, but if an

employee has been convicted for an offence not involving moral turpitude, then

his dismissal is not warranted.

Moral Turpitude has been explained by the Supreme Court in the cases of

Allahabad Bank Vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola reported in (1997) 4 SCC 1 and

Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1996) 4 SCC 17. In the case

of Pawan Kumar (Supra) it has been held as under :-

''12. "Moral turpitude" is an expression which is used in legal

WP 8154 of 2020 Jagdish Singh Jatav vs. State of MP and Others

as also societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity. The Government of Haryana while considering the question of rehabilitation of ex-convicts took a policy decision on 2-2-1973 (Annexure E in the Paper-book), accepting the recommendations of the Government of India, that ex-convicts who were convicted for offences involving moral turpitude should not however be taken in government service. A list of offences which were considered involving moral turpitude was prepared for information and guidance in that connection. Significantly Section 294 IPC is not found enlisted in the list of offences constituting moral turpitude. Later, on further consideration, the Government of Haryana on 17/26-3-1975 explained the policy decision of 2-2-1973 and decided to modify the earlier decision by streamlining determination of moral turpitude as follows:

"... The following terms 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 been committed the perpetrator could be considered to be of a depraved character or a person who was to be looked down upon by the society.

Decision in each case will, however, depend on the circumstances of the case and the competent authority has to exercise its discretion while taking a decision in accordance with the above-mentioned principles. A list of offences which involve moral 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."

In order to find out as to whether the petitioner has committed an offence

involving moral turpitude or not, it would be necessary for this Court to consider

the allegations which were levelled against the petitioner. According to the

WP 8154 of 2020 Jagdish Singh Jatav vs. State of MP and Others

prosecution case, on 27/04/2016 at about 09:00 am, the complainant

Radhakrishna Jatav was wrongfully restrained by the petitioner and two other

co-accused persons and he was abused and with an intention to cause hurt to the

complainant, he was assaulted by fists and blows as well as by a brick. The

allegations of assaulting the complainant by brick was against the co-accused

Nihal Singh. On the report lodged by the complainant, Crime No.166/2016 was

registered at Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior and after completing the

investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the applicant and other

two co-accused persons. Charges under Section 341, 294, 323/34, 506 (II) of

IPC were framed and by judgment dated 17/06/2019 passed by JMFC, Gwalior

in Criminal Case No.4271/2016, the petitioner and other two co-accused persons

were convicted for offence under Sections 323, 341/34 of IPC, whereas, the

petitioner and the co-accused persons were acquitted for the charges under

Section 294, 506 (II) of IPC.

If the allegations which were made against the petitioner are considered,

then it is clear that causing bodily hurt would not involve moral turpitude. The

allegations of assaulting the complainant by a brick is against co-accused Nihal

Singh and the only allegations against the petitioner were that he along with the

co-accused persons, had wrongfully restrained the complainant and assaulted

him by fists and blows. By no stretch of imagination, the allegation against the

petitioner can be considered to be an offence involving moral turpitude.

In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of

WP 8154 of 2020 Jagdish Singh Jatav vs. State of MP and Others

P. Soupramaniane (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the

authorities failed to consider that the allegation levelled against the petitioner

does not involve moral turpitude and merely because the petitioner has been

convicted for offence under Sections 323, 341/34 of IPC, it is not sufficient to

dismiss him from service.

Accordingly, the order dated 04/05/2020 passed by the Director, Public

Education, MP, Bhopal and the order 23/01/2020 passed by the Joint Director,

Public Education, Division Gwalior are hereby set aside.

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in

service forthwith. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for back-wages

from the date of his dismissal till today.

With aforesaid observations, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge

MKB

MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK VALSALA 2021.01.25 15:04:14 +05'30' VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00'