The nature of the offence and the circumstances must be considered before dismissing an employee based on a conviction. Not every conviction warrants dismissal, and the disciplinary power must be exercised reasonably and fairly.

ORDER

Sanjay Dwivedi, J. - On the request of learned counsel for the parties and since pleadings are complete, the matter is heard finally.

2. By the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 15.06.2016 (Annexure-P/5] passed by the District Education Officer, Sehore, terminating the services of the petitioner due to his conviction in a criminal case, so also the order dated 07.03.2017 [Annexure-P/9] by which an appeal preferred by the petitioner, was also dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the offences under which the petitioner has been convicted, do not fall within the definition of moral turpitude. He submits that even though in a list filed by him categorizing the offences which come under the definition of moral turpitude though the offences under Sections 148 and 149 of IPC, do fall within the said category, but still in view of the various decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court, the same cannot be considered to be of moral turpitude taking note of the role of the petitioner in the alleged crime, in which he has been convicted. He has placed reliance on various decisions of various Courts, they are - 2011(4) MPLJ 452 (R.P. Dwivedi Vs. SECL); 2011(2) MPLJ 267 (Shriram Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Others); 2008 (3) SCC 273 (State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Hazarilal); 2000(2) GauhatiLaw Reports 612 (Har Kumar Das Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation & Ors.) and judgment passed in W.P. No.8645/2016 (Sita Ram Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others) and W.A. No.955/2018 (The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sita Ram Sharma) so also the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7011/2009 (The State Bank of India & Others Vs. P. Soupramaniane).

4. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State submits that as per the petitioner's own showing and the documents filed by him showing list of offences which do fall under the definition of moral turpitude since offences under Sections 148 and 149 of IPC come within the definition of moral turpitude, accordingly, the orders passed by the authority do not call for any interference because it is offence of moral turpitude and therefore, the petitioner has rightly been dismissed from service.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. To resolve the controversy involved in the case, certain facts required to be mentioned, are hereinbelow:-

That, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Govt. Teacher by order dated 28.02.1986 [Annexure-P/1] in Sehore and thereafter, the petitioner was discharging his services as such. A complaint was made against the petitioner and a criminal case was registered against him. However, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in the same, but he was convicted vide judgment dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore, in Session Trial No.98/2011, whereby sentence of three years under Sections 148, 323/149, 325/149 of I.P.C. has been awarded against the petitioner.

Against the said judgment, a criminal appeal i.e. Cr.A. No.3335/2015 was preferred before the High Court and vide order dated 14.12.2015, the sentence was suspended by the High Court and bail has also been granted to him.

The complainant of the criminal case wrote a letter to respondent No.4 apprising him aboutthe conviction of the petitioner, then show-cause notice was issued to him on 15.12.2015 asking him as to why punishment of dismissal from service shall not be inflicted upon him, when he has committed a misconduct by not informing the Department about the conviction.

The petitioner submitted his reply on 02.01.2016 stating that he had already informed the Headmaster of the School orally and then respondent No.4 passed an order under Rule 19(1} of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules, 1966 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1966'] which was later on modified and the District Education Officer, Sehore, t