JUDGMENT

1. This petition under section 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 4.5.2020 passed by the Director, Public Education, MP, Bhopal, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal issued by the Joint Director, Public Education, Division Gwalior on 23.1.2020, has been dismissed.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of present petition in short are that the petitioner was working as Upper Division Clerk in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Gohad, District Bhind. He was convicted by judgment dated 17.6.2019 passed by JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No.166/2016 for offene under sections 341, 323/34 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of three months and a fine of Rs.500/-. Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate Court by judgment dated 7.9.2019. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal, the petitioner has filed a criminal revision before this Court and by order dated 16.9.2019, his sentence has been suspended. The petitioner also remained in custody from 7.9.2019 to 16.9.2019.

3. Challenging the impugned orders passed by the authorities, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that even if the petitioner has been convicted for offence under sections 323, 341, 34 of IPC but the offence committed by the petitioner does not involve moral turpitude, therefore, the respondents have committed a mistake by terminating the services of the petitioner.

4. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

5. Rule 19 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (In short Rules 1966), which provides for special procedure in certain cases, to which reliance has been placed by the appellants does not appear to be applicable in the instant case. The said Rule reads thus :

“19. Special procedure in certain cases.—Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 14 to Rule 18—

(i) where any penalty is imposed on a government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or

(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules, or

(iii) where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit :

Provided that the Commission shall be consulted where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this Rule.”

6. From plain reading of rule 19(i) of Rules 1966, it is clear that the departmental enquiry can be dispensed with in the case of the conduct of an employee which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. However, it would be too harsh to hold that the employer is not entitled to consider the circumstances of the criminal case, and in spite of the nature of the offence, the employer has to issue an order of dismissal.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of The State Bank of India v. P. Soupramaniane by judgment dated 26.4.2019 passed in C.A. NO. 7011 of 2019 has held as under :-

''9. There can be no manner of doubt about certain offences which can straightaway be termed as involving moral turpitude e.g. offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act,NDPS Act, etc. The question that arises for our consideration in this case is whether an offence involving bodily injury can be categorized as a crime involving moral turpitude. In this case, we are concerned with an assault. It is very difficult to state that every assault is not an offence involving moral turpitude. A simple assault is different from an aggravated assault. All cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorized as crimes involving moral turpitude. On the other hand