Back
K.S.PARIPOORNAN, M.M.PUNCHHI
Pawan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
How to determine whether a conviction under Section 294 IPC involves moral turpitude for government service eligibility? What is the relevance of a petty fine (e.g., Rs. 20) under Section 294 IPC in assessing moral turpitude and continued government service? What is the appropriate remedial measure regarding petty offences tried summarily to avoid disqualifying future employment in government service?
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 d
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
