Back
2006 Supreme(Chh) 428
2006(2) C.G.L.J. 495
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
S.K. Agnihotri, J.
SHRI RAM MISHRA & ANOTHER - Petitioners
Vs.
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER & ANOTHER - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 830 of 2004,
Decided on : 1-9-2006.
Shri K.R. Nair, Advocate, for the Petitioners.
Shri P.S. Koshy, Advocate, for the Respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of moral turpitude in the context of employment termination based on criminal convictions.
Headnote:
Moral Turpitude - Employment Termination - Indian Penal Code, Section 304-B, Section 34, Section 201 - The court discussed the definition of moral turpitude and its application to the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 304-B, 34, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. It also considered the necessity of an enquiry before imposing the punishment of removal from service and cited relevant case law to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 34, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for the dowry death of the petitioner No. 1's daughter-in-law. They were removed from service by the Chief General Manager of South Eastern Coalfields Limited, and the petitioners filed a petition to challenge the removal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offences committed by the petitioners involved moral turpitude, as they were contrary to justice, honesty, and morality, and shocked the moral conscience of the community. It also determined that no enquiry under the Certified Standing Orders was necessary before the removal from service, considering the nature of the convictions.
Issues: The main issues involved whether the conviction for the specified offences involved moral turpitude and whether an enquiry as contemplated under the Certified Standing Orders was necessary to establish the involvement of moral turpitude.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the offences committed by the petitioners involved moral turpitude based on the definition and principles of moral turpitude. It also concluded that no enquiry under the Certified Standing Orders was necessary in the given circumstances, citing relevant case law to support its decision.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the petitioners.
S.K. Agnihotri, J. ;_
1. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 31.3.2004 (Annexure R/3 and R/3-A), passed by the Chief General Manager, Bhatgaon Area, South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), whereby the petitioners were removed from service w.e.f 1.4.2004, have filed this petition impugning the said orders and seeking quashing of the charge-sheets dated 20.12.2003 and 10.12.2003 (Annexure P/1 and P/2).
2. The material facts, leading the filing of this petition may shortly be stated as follows. The petitioners were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 304-B read with 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the dowry death of daughter-in-law of the petitioner No. 1 and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and rigorous imprisonment for two years with payment of fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount three months simple imprisonment, each, respectively, vide judgment dated 7. 11.2003 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Soorajpur, District-Surguja (F.T.C.) in Sessions Trial No. 393/2001. The appeal filed thereon, being Criminal Appeal No. 203/2003, is pending consideration before this Court, wherein the sentences imposed upon the petitioners have been suspended vide order dated (13. 11 .2003 (Annexure P/11).
3. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners made an application to the respondents/Coalfields Limited for permitting them to join their duties. No order, according to the petitioners, was passed on the said application. The charge-sheets dated 20. 12.2003 and 10.12.2003 were issued to the petitioners to the effect that their conviction in the criminal Court amounts to misconduct and they were called upon to submit their explanation to the charges, as to why they should not be removed from service? The petitioners submitted their reply dated 7.4.2004 (Annexure P/5 and P/6), separately, admitting that the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced by the trial court, the appeal against the judgment passed by the trial court is pending and the sentences imposed upon them have been suspended, as stated above. It was further stated that as per clause 26.8 of the Standing Orders, the conviction does not involve moral turpitude. It is submitted that proper enquiry be held before taking any action against them.
4. After having considered their explanation, the show cause notice dated 4/5.2.2004 (Annexure R/1 and Annexure R/1-A) were issued to the petitioners, seeking their explanation as to why the petitioners be not removed from service as the conviction involves moral turpitude. The reply (Annexure R/2 and Annexure R/2-A) to the show cause was filed by the petitioners. It appears having considered the reply filed by the petitioners, the respondents Coalfields Ltd. passed the order of termination dated 31.3.2004 (Annexure R/3 and R/3-A).
5. The main question of law, involved in the present case is, as to whether the conviction for an offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 and 201 of the I.P.C. involve moral turpitude? Moral turpitude is defined in 'Advanced Law Lexicon 3rd Edition', (page 3068), the relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below;
"Moral turpitude .. Anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principle or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a main owes to his fellow man or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man. (Ame. Cyc.)
7. Conduct that is contrary to justice, honesty, or morality. In the area of legal ethics, offenses involving moral turpitude-such as fraud or breach of trust-traditionally make a person unfit to practice law. Also termed moral depravity. 2. Military law. Any conduct for which the applicable punishment is a dishonorable discharge or confinement not less than one year. (Black, 7th Edn., 1999).
"Moral turpitude means, in general, shameful
