Back
1996(4) Supreme 764
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan Mohan Punchhi and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.
Pawan Kumar -Appellant
versus
State of Haryana & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No.7796 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.14349 of 1995)
Decided on 7-5-1996
Held : "Moral turpitude" is an expression which is used in legal 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 February 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 17/26th March, 1975 explained the policy decision of February 2, 1973 and decided to modify the earlier decision by streamlining determination of moral turpitude. Section 294 IPC still remains out of the list. Thus the conviction of the appellant under Section 294 IPC on its own would not involve moral turpitude depriving him the opportunity to serve the State unless the facts and circumstances, which led to the conviction, met the requirements of the policy decision. (Para 12)
Further held : Mere payment of fine of Rs.20/- does not go to show that the conviction was validly and legally recorded. Assuming that the conviction is not open to challenge at the present juncture, we cannot but deprecate the action of the respondents in having proceeded to adversely certify the character and antecedents of the appellant on the basis of the conviction per se, opining to have involved moral turpitude, without satisfying the tests laid down in the policy decision of the government. We are rather unhappy to note that all the three courts below, even when invited to judge the matter in the said perspective, went on to hold that the act/s involved in conviction under Section 249 IPC per se established moral turpitude. They should have been sensitive to the changing perspectives and concepts of morality to appreciate the effect of Section 294 IPC on today s society and its standards, and its changing views of obscenity. The matter unfortunately was dealt with casually at all levels. (Para 13)
Consequently held : Life is too precious to be staked over a petty incident like this. Immediate remedial measures are therefore necessary in raising the toleration limits with regard to petty offences especially when tried summarily. Provision need be made that punishment of fine upto a certain limit, say upto Rs.2000/- or so, on a summary/ordinary conviction shall not be treated as conviction at all for any purpose and all the more for entry into and retention in government service. (Para 14)
(ii) Service Law-Moral turpitude-offences constituting-Offences tried summarily-Provision need be made that punishment of fine upto Rs.2000/- on a summary/ordinary conviction shall not be treated as conviction at all for any purpose. (Para 14)
Key Points: - (!) (!) (!) - (!) - (!)
JUDGMENT
Punchhi, J.-Special leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed on October 31, 1994 in Regular Second Appeal No.3756 of 1987. It has arisen on these facts :
3. The appellant, Pawan Kumar on 19.4.78 was appointed in a class IV post as a Field Worker, on ad hoc basis, in the office of the Chief Medical Officer, General Hospital, Bhiwani, Haryana. In his terms of appointment it was made clear that the ad hoc appointment offered was till such time his character and antecedents were verified as satisfactory, when he would be considered for regular appointment. He was required to give a declaration in writing that he had not, on any previous occasion, been dismissed from service and had not been convicted by any court of law. This declaration, the appellant presumably furnished.
4. While in service, the appellant on 4.6.1980 came to be convicted in a summary trial for offence under Section 294 IPC by the Court of Shri P.L. Khanduja, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani on his entering upon a plea of guilt, for which he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.20/-, which fine he paid there and then, whereafter it was deposited in the treasury by the Chief Judicial Magistrate the same day. The appellant s appointment however, in the meantime was kept renewed from time to time.
5. When steps were afoot to regularise his services, papers were moved to the office of the Superintendent of Police to verify about the character and antecedents of the appellant. The office of the Superintendent of Police reported back the factum of conviction of the appellant under Section 294 IPC, but otherwise verified that the appellant was of good character. Thereafter the opinion of the District Attorney, Bhiwani was sought. He opined that the offence punishable under Section 294 IPC was not a serious offence which could involve moral turpitude and the sentence of fine of Rs.20/- imposed on the appellant was not likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties and therefore there was no legal bar for his retention in service. A reference was also made to the Legal Remembrancer to the Government of Haryana, soliciting his opinion. This officer opined that it would not be desirable to appoint the appellant in government service since he had been convicted under Section 294 IPC, involving an offence of moral turpitude, as otherwise the very purpose of verification of character/antecedents would be frustrated. On the collection of such material, decision was taken and the services of the appellant were terminated vide order dated 30-9-1984, as no longer required.
6. Challenging this order the appellant went in suit for declaration before the Civil Court, describing the order terminating his services as against law, equity, good conscience, and violative of principles of natural justice, claiming that he continued to be in service entitled to all benefits of service including salary etc. The State and the Chief Medical Officer resisted the suit. The only contentious issue which sprung up from the pleadings of the parties was :
"Whether the order dated 30-9-1984 about the termination of service of the plaintiff is wrong, illegal and liable to be set aside as alleged?"
7. The trial court decided the said issue against the appellant. The lower appellate court on appeal affirmed the same. The High Court too in second appeal concurred with the decision of the courts below, basically on two grounds, namely, (i) that the conviction of the appellant under Section 294 IPC revealed an act which per se constituted moral turpitude ; and (ii) the order of termination of service, bare facedly, on its plain language was not stigmatic. All the same it was never disputed by the defendants-respondents that since the character and antecedent verification had revealed the conviction of the appellant under Section 294 IPC, that was the reason why the services of the appellant were dispensed with and not reg
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
