A government servant convicted of murder is not entitled to the benefit of the procedural and substantive safeguards provided under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, and the authorities have very little discretion in the matter of imposing departmental punishment on such a person.

A. K. Ganguly, J. - This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents for fixing the salary of the petitioner in terms of the scale of pay which is commensurate with the second time bound promotion which allegedly had been given to the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1994. There is also a prayer for a direction upon the respondent to pay the petitioner the arrears of salary accrued as per the scale of pay on the basis of time bound promotion from 1.4.1984 till the date of voluntary retirement by the petitioner on 21.8.85.

2. The facts of this case in short are as follows:-

The petitioner was appointed a compounder by the then District Board on 10th September, 1953 in the Pandarak District Board Dispensary. Thereafter, he was posted in the same capacity, at State Dispensary, Sanmera on 1.11.1961. Petitioner's claim is that his services were absorbed in the Government with effect from 1.9.1959.

3. From the counter affidavit it appears that the petitioner was an accused in connection with a criminal case and he was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment from 28.2.1978 by the District & Sessions Judge, and the said ORDER :of conviction was affirmed by the division Bench of the High Court, by a JUDGMENT : and ORDER :dated 3rd July, 1985. In the concluding portion of the said JUDGMENT : of the Division Bench, it has been held as follows:-

"As regards appellant Adya Singh, it has already been indicated above that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of this appellant that he killed the deceased Mahendra Singh intentionally by causing bullet injury to him by gun. As such, appellant Adya Singh is found guilty for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. and is hereby convicted for the same. The minimum punishment provided under Section 302 I.P.C. that is, imprisonment for life is awarded to him which would meet the ends of justice. His conviction under section 27 of the Arms Act is also awarded to him under this count."

4. It appears from a perusal of the said JUDGMENT : of the Hon'ble High Court that the incident took place on 24.10.1972 and allegation against the petitioner is one of killing his own brother over property dispute.

5. In view of the aforesaid JUDGMENT : of the Sessions Judge and the High Court, the status of the petitioner is that of a person convicted for the offence of murder by courts of competent jurisdiction. It is surprising that a government servant with such antecedents has been given first time bound and second time bound promotion in Government service. This Court is further surprised to find that the suspension ORDER :passed against the petitioner for his detention for 24th October, 1972 to 5th March, 1973 has been set aside, by a Division Bench of this High Court.

6. The said ORDER :of suspension was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court. The learned Judges of the Division Bench of this Court came to a finding that the petitioner could not be suspended under Rule 100 of the Bihar Service Code for the offence with which he was charged namely the offence of murder as it does not amount to moral turpitude, and the suspension ORDER :of the petitioner was thus quashed.

7. This Court sitting singly finds it extremely difficult to accept this proposition laid down in the JUDGMENT : of the said Division Bench of this Court. It is difficult for this Court to accept that a person who is a Government Servant and commits the murder of his own brother over property dispute, is not a person who is guilty of moral turpitude. But the disturbed judicial conscience of this Court was relieved after the court's notice was drawn to a Full Bench JUDGMENT : of this Court in the case of Sarju Prasad Singh vs. the State of Bihar & ors." reported in 1987 P.L.J.R. page-285.

In that Full Bench JUDGMENT :, the word 'moral turpitude' in the context of Rules 99 and 100 of the Bihar Service Code was considered by the learned Judges and after considering the several cases on this point, the