Moral turptitude
sanjay sanjay
(Querist) 26 July 2012
This query is : Resolved
whether conviction u/s 323 IPC comes under offences of moral turptitude and necessarily results in the dismissal of a central govt employee? whether the disciplinary authority in such case has some discretion to award some other penalty instead of dismissal/removal of the employee?
Guest
(Expert) 26 July 2012
Once a Government servant is convicted in a case involving moral turpitude, there is no scope to avoid dismissal/ removal from service. The disciplinary authority cannot use his discretion to avoid imposing penalty of dismissal/ removal from service.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 27 July 2012
What has been observed by Mr. Dhingra is correct so far as it goes with convictions involving offences of moral turpitude.
But question posed by you requires an examination ,if the conviction for an offence
under 323 of IPC which covers cases of assaults WOULD INVOLVE MORAL TURPITUDE??
MORAL TURPITUDE ,though used so much in practice,has unfortunately been not defined by any legislation.
However our Apex Court in 'Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana', AIR 1996 SC 3300,laid ".....The following terms should ordinarily be applied in judging whether a certain offence involves moral turpitude or not:
(1) whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the moral conscience of society in general.
(2) Whether the motive which led to the act was a base one.
(3) Whether on account of the act having been
committed the perpetrator could be considered to be of a depraved character or a person who was to be looked down upon by the society."
The test which can be applied for judging whether an offence does or does not involve "moral turpitude" can be summarised as follows:
(1) Whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the moral conscience of
society in general;
(2) Whether the motive which led to the act was a baseone; and
(3) Whether on account of the act having been
committed the perpetrator could be considered to be of a depraved character or a person who was to be looked down upon by the society.
(12) It is not possible to lay down any abstract standard which constitutes moral turpitude. There are certain criminal offences like theft, robbery, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of property, which directly involve moral turpitude. In such cases, no elaborate investigation is required to find out the depraved conduct of the delinquent employee. If the offence does not show any element of vileness,
deprivity and weakness of character of the offender, the disciplinary authority is required to consider the facts and circumstances of the case to find out whether the motive which led to the conviction was deprave. It is a settled law that "moral turpitude" cannot be applied in its widest term. However, the ratio
decidendi of the various cases indicate that the question whether a certain offence involves "moral turpitude" or not will necessarily depend on the circumstances in which the offence is committed.
Any criminal conviction per se does not amount to "moral turpitude". So it follows that when an employee is convicted on criminal charge his dismissal cannot be automatic, unless, there is specific rule in that regard.
So the test is circumstances in which an offence was committed plays the real test and not the offence alone.
In Ram Narain Sharma vs Canara Bank (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1899570/)The Delhi High court laid that
"19.In the instant case, appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 323 IPC. Charges against the appellant were that on 4th July, 1978 during banking hours, while working as Clerk in Kamla Nagar Branch of the Bank, being dissatisfied with his work, Manager Mr. B.P.Rao, called him and advised him to improve RSA No.121/2001 Page 12 of 47 his work, lest he would report the matter to the Circle Office. On hearing this, appellant got angry and lost his temper, he shouted at the Manager. It seems that he left the office of the Manager and came back to his cabin and slapped him on his face. Not only this, appellant hit him on his head with a wooden board/iron rod and caused him head injuries. He was charged with an offence under Section 308 IPC. After trial, court convicted him for an offence under Section 323 IPC. Therefore, appellant was convicted for voluntarily causing simple hurt on the person of the Bank Manager, Mr. B.P.Rao.
20. Thus, it is clear that appellant while on duty as a Clerk of the Bank, which is a public institution, not only misbehaved with the Manager but also caused him injuries on his person by slapping him and hitting him on his head, resulting into two bleeding injuries on his head. This indecent behaviour of the appellant in the Bank premises during office hours, whereby he not only shouted at the Manager but also caused him physical injuries on his head, slapped him in presence of the customers and other employees involve moral turpitude. Other employees of the Bank, under the circumstances, would have no respect for such a Manager whose Clerk could misbehave with him and assault him in their presence and in the RSA No.121/2001 Page 13 of 47 presence of the customers. There was no provocation except that appellant was counselled by the Manager to do his official duties carefully. His indecent behaviour must have been looked down upon by his colleagues and other employees of the Bank in particular and by public who visited the Bank to transact business in general.
21. As discussed above, 'moral' stands for 'right and wrong conduct'. Conduct of the appellant, in this case, was not only wrong but was such which everyone would look down upon. He had no right to go back to the cabin of the Manager after coming out of it and then slapping and assaulting him. His behaviour, therefore, was a case of perversity and has to be called 'moral turpitude.' It is not material that he was convicted for an offence under Section 323 IPC. It is his behaviour as a subordinate towards his senior which constitutes „moral turpitude‟. No subordinate can be allowed to behave in an indecent manner and physically assault his senior in violation of office decorum and discipline. If appellant had any grievance against counselling or alleged reprimand by his Manager, he could have taken recourse to the Rule and procedure permissible as per Banking Regulations. Appellant was on public duty at the relevant time when he caused head injuries on the person of the Manager. His conduct obviously is inherently base, vile and RSA No.121/2001 Page 14 of 47 depraved and his conviction based on such an act was such that could shock the moral conscience of society in general and his fellowmen in particular. There was no motive for the appellant to commit an offence. There was nothing left to be proved before the enquiring authority. Under the circumstances, Bank was not required to hold an enquiry."
sanjay sanjay
(Querist) 27 July 2012
sir
Thanks for such a elobrate reply. But please let me know what will be position in case of a conviction under 323 IPC when there was a minor scuffle between govt employee and pvt person, both recieved simple minor injuries, there was a long history of civil altercation between the party about which deptt was informed earlier and there is evidence to the fact that govt employee was threatened to be entangled in a false case so that his job could be taken away?
Guest
(Expert) 27 July 2012
Dear Sanjay,
The disciplinary authority is concerned only with the conviction by the court of law in a criminal case involving moral turpitude of the Government employee, not whether the scuffle was minor or major, or whether the employee was falsely involved or in a real case.
In fact the hands of the disciplinary authority are tied by the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules with no discretion left with him. However, if you are acquitted honourably in an appeal case against the conviction, you can not only be reinstated in service but also the whole period from the date of dismissal/ removal till the date of reinstatement can also be treated as duty period.
