COURT NO. 3, ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI T.A. No. 60 of 2010 Delhi High Court W.P (C) No. 621 of 2003

Similar documents
COURT NO. 2, ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A. NO. 140 OF 2009

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2. OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014. Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015

PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No of 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3046/2019 (ARISING FROM SLP(C) NO(S). 4964/2019)

Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Nitish Jain & Mr. Jatin Sethi, Advs. Versus

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Writ Petition (C) No.606 of 2016

Through: Mr. Kartik Prasad with Ms. Reeja Varghese, Adv. versus

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH AT CHANDIMANDIR -.- OA 1180 of 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) No. 469/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI I.A. No of 2014 with I.A. No. 175 of 2011 in Cr.Appeal (D.B.) No. 904 of 2008

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE. versus

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH AT CHANDIMANDIR -.- MA 2749 of 2013 and OA 2104 of 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BORDER SECURITY FORCE ACT, 1968 Date of Decision: W.P.(C) No.

$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgment delivered on: 20 th October, 2015

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, CHENNAI. O.A.No.92 of Monday, the 29 th day of July, 2013

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW RESERVE (Court No. 2) Original Application No. 47 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on:

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgment delivered on: December 11, 2014

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2467/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Crl.M.C. 638/2009 & Crl.M.A.2384/09 (stay) Date of reserve:

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO. 1. O.A. No. 172 of 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 408 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.

IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW. O.A. No. 56 of Wednesday, this the 19 th day of December, 2018

% W.P.(C) No. 5513/2004

2. Heard Sri Bhola Singh Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishad Murtza, learned Government Advocate.

$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 30 th July, CRL.M.C. No.2836/2015. Versus

$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgment delivered on:10 th September, 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 184 OF

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. W.P. No.750/2017. Bar Association Lahar, Dist. Bhind -Versus- State Bar Council of M.

versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. 1. In this writ petition filed by the petitioner, the challenge is made to

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2020 OF 2013 LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Small Industries Development Bank of India ( SIDBI)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Crl.M.C. 3710/2007. Date of decision: February 06, 2009.

J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5124/06) A.K. MATHUR, J.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO OF 2015 VERSUS

ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK FULL BENCH

CONTEMPT APPLICATION No. 09 OF Ram Gopal Sharma. Applicant. Versus. Sh Sanjay Mitra IAS (WB:82), Defence Secretary, 101-A, South

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 997/2014. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. Judgment reserved on: Judgment pronounced on:

SEE RULE 102(1)) ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH O. A. No. 58 of THIS 12 th DAY OF APRIL, 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. OF 2017 IN Writ Petition (Civil) No.

W.P.(C) No.5740 of 2001 P R E S E N T HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE W.P.(C) 6034/2013 DATE OF DECISION :

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:11 th December, Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus AND. CM (M)No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW. ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 318 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 960 of 2005 [In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3603/2015 & Crl.M.A.12792/2015 Reserved on: Date of decision:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PERMANENT REGISTRATION. Date of Decision: W.P.(C) 8745/2011 & C.M. Nos.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.933 OF Dr. RAM LAKHAN SINGH. PETITIONER

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH BHOPAL. Original Application No. 16/2014 (CZ) (THC)

$~R-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2 nd DAY OF JULY, 2012 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No. 2145/1999

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL M.C. NO.1412 OF 2004 Decided on : 2nd July, 2012

I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my. esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha,

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW. O.A. No. 109 of Tuesday, this the 04 th day of September, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No of 2013

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW. Original Application No. 113 of Monday, this the 17 th day of April, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO OF 2012 [S-R]

Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.VI,... Respondents. Delhi and Anr. Through Ms.Amita Gupta, Advocate

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Ajoy Kumar Ghose vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 18 March, 2009

JUDGMENT (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No of 2005) ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO(S). 11 OF Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT. Crl. M.C. No. 2183/2011. Reserved on: 18th January, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT :CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL M.C. NO.3015 OF 2012 Decided on : 4th January, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.2631 OF State of Bihar & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION. CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND,RANCHI.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2016 (Arising out SLP (Crl.) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Petitioner in person.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD. SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO of 2015

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.

JUDGMENT ( )

A FORTNIGHTLY VAT/GST LAW REPORTER 2003 NTN 22) [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4158/2015 Date of Decision : January 08 th, versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. Criminal Appeal No of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No of 2010) Decided On:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1395 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No of 2016] Versus

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

II (2013) CPJ 10A (NC) (CN) NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI Hon ble Mr. Justice V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member PARMOD KUMAR

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgement delivered on: 12 th January, W.P.(C) 7068/2014

W.P. (C) No. 45 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 506 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 509 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 512 of 2013

CHAPTER VII PROSECUTION. 1.Sanction for prosecution

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CONDONATION OF DELAY. W.P (C ) No /2006. Judgment reserved on: October 19, 2006

Transcription:

COURT NO. 3, ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI T.A. No. 60 of 2010 Delhi High Court W.P (C) No. 621 of 2003 IN THE MATTER OF:...Applicant Through Shri P.D.P Deo counsel for the Applicant. Versus Union of India and Others...Respondents Through: Shri Ankur Chhiber counsel for the Respondents CORAM: HON BLE MR JUSTICE MANAK MOHTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, HON BLE LT GEN M.L. NAIDU, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Date: 04-03-2011 JUDGMENT 1. The petition/application was first filed on 05/02/2003 before the Hon ble Delhi High Court. It was transferred to this Tribunal on its formation on 28/10/2009. 2. The applicant vide this writ petition has prayed for quashing the order of denial of promotion to the rank of Subedar dated 30/05/1995 (Annexure P-1) and rejecting his representation Page 1 of 17

vide letter dated 06/02/1998 (Annexure P-10). He has also prayed for directing the respondents to promote him as Subedar with effect from 01/04/1995 with all consequential benefits including pensionary benefits and payment of gratuity amount. 3. The facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army as a clerk on 02/08/1971 and was promoted up to the rank of Naib Subedar on 01/12/1990. 4. On 30/05/1995 the applicant was approved for the rank of Subedar with seniority to take effect from 01/04/1995. However, his promotion was withheld under Para 3 (a) (iii) of the Army order 20/81 because of his involvement in a criminal murder case treating it as a case of moral turpitude lodged against him. It is submitted by applicant that in May 1993 when he was on leave, he came to his village at Patna where he was falsely implicated in a criminal case alongwith others for committing murder and was taken to judicial custody on 21/05/1993 and latter on released on bail on 25/09/1993. The case is stated to be still pending under trial before Session Judge, Patna. Page 2 of 17

5. The applicant contends that on 08.07.1995 ASC Records (Supply) and on 20/10/1995 (Annexure P-3) the Officer Commanding of the unit requested and sent a letter to the Records with a copy to AHQ, ST-12 to invoke the provisions of Army Order 20/81 stating the applicant was not involved in criminal case involving moral turpitude or lack of integrity. Again in 1996 and 1997 matter for invoking the clause under AO 20/81 was taken up by the respective Officers Commanding of the units, but no action was taken to promote the applicant as a Subedar. Since the applicant was not promoted to the rank of Subedar, he was discharged on completion of his term in the rank of Naib Subedar on 31/08/1997. 6. The applicant further contends that on 10/12/1997, he put up his representation to Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, New Delhi for necessary relief and intervention on this matter. On 06/02/1998 (Annexure P-10) Directorate General of Supply & Transport intimated him regarding rejecting his case for promotion and the other relief, while informing him that since he had not been promoted to the rank of Subedar and he was discharged from service on completion of his terms of engagement he is not entitled for any Page 3 of 17

relief. In Dec 2001 and Jan 2002 his representations to the ASC Records were also rejected. 7. The applicant also filed the writ petition CWJC No.4264/1998 before the Hon ble Patna High Court in 1998 and the same was dismissed on 19/04/1999 on grounds of territorial jurisdiction. However, the Hon ble Court granted liberty to the applicant to make appropriate representation to the authority concerned for the payment of retirement benefits. The applicant filed representation to the CDA (Pension) in Apr 1999 which was rejected by the CDA (P) Allahabad on 28/06/1999 by a reasoned order. The applicant once again filed LPA in 1999 and JMC in 2000 which were also dismissed by Hon ble Patna High Court. 8. The respondents in their reply contended that applicant was granted part of annual leave w.e.f. 10.05.1993 to 25.06.1993. During that leave period he was arrested by the Bihar Police at Patna in a criminal case under Sections 147/148/149/302 & 337 I.P.C. and under the provisions of the Arms Act for the offence of shooting to death of a co-villager on 21.05.1993. He was released on bail on 25.08.1993. Subsequently, he was posted to HQ 19 Infantry Division w.e.f. 03.10.1994. It was contended that Page 4 of 17

the applicant was due for promotion to the rank of Paid Acting Subedar w.e.f. 01.04.1995. In that respect a certificate to the effect that applicant was not involved in any disciplinary/vigilance/ criminal case as per A.O. 20/1981 (Annexure R-3) was required. That was called from the said division where the applicant was serving. HQ 19 Infantry Division taking cognizance of the criminal case pending against the applicant failed to forward the noninvolvement certificate. Therefore, the applicant could not be promoted to the rank of Paid Acting Subedar. The applicant was discharged from service w.e.f. 31.08.1997 on completion of term of engagement as applicable to the rank of Naib Subedar. 9. In reply, it was also contended that as the applicant was involved in a criminal case he was not entitled to DCRG and commutation of pension in terms of Rule 3(b) of Pension Regulation of Army Part-I, 1961 as inserted vide CS No.152/VII/76 (Annexure R-5). However, the applicant was granted provisional pension of Rs.1057/- per month w.e.f. 01.09.1997 for life vide CCDA (P) Allahabad PPQ No.S/1330/97. The DCRG and commuted value pension will be released after the honourable acquittal of the applicant by the Court on finalisation of the criminal case. It also contended that applicant Page 5 of 17

had filed writ petition before the Hon ble Patna High Court, which was dismissed on 19.04.1999 with liberty to file representation for retiral benefits. The representation was also disposed of vide order dated 28.06.1999. 10. The applicant also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents reiterating the grounds contended earlier and further submitted that as there was a gap of more than four years between alleged institution of the criminal case i.e. on 21.05.1993 and the date of retirement on 31.08.1997. Therefore, he was entitled for the full pension. The respondents also filed additional affidavit again stating that the pension will be finalised only after the disposal of the criminal case proceedings. 11. Arguments were heard and the records perused. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant again stressed that his promotion to the rank of Subedar was denied due to his involvement in criminal case bearing moral turpitude on the basis of A.O. No.20/1981. Clause 3(a)(iii) of the A.O. reads as under: 3. In order, therefore, to obviate occurrence of cases of this nature, the following procedure is laid down: - Page 6 of 17

(a) Before ordering promotion, substantive or action, the Office will obtain clearance from the unit/formation where an individual is serving regarding his non-involvement in any disciplinary, vigilance or criminal case. If an individual is reported to be involved in any of the following cases, a ban on his promotion will be imposed: - (i) Disciplinary Cases: Where formal congnizance of offence has been taken. (ii) (iii) Vigilance Cases: Where a report from the SPE/CBI has established a prima facie case against the individual. Criminal Cases: Where a person is facing prosecution by Government in a Court of Law on a matter involving moral turpitude or lack of integrity. 12. Learned counsel for the applicant stressed that before judging a case of moral turpitude the authorities has to examine the intention, nature, quality and involvement in the offence of the person concerned. Merely on the pendency of the criminal case one cannot be held to be involved in a case of moral turpitude. Learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his contention, drew our attention towards the notes given in Book Advanced Law Lexicon as published by P. Ramantha Aiyar, 3 rd Edition 2005:- Page 7 of 17

(i) Act of killing a person is normally attributed to a feeling of hurt or revenge, an act of personal vendetta. Per se an act of murder will not come within the broad concept of moral turpitude. Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Punjab, AIR 1994 P & K 242, 247. (Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, (1961), S.17, 26). (ii) It is the quality of a crime involving grave infringement of the moral sentiment of the community as distinguished from statutory prohibitions. 1995 MPLJ 870 at 872. (MP Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963, Standing Order 12 (1) (a)). (iii) Offence involving moral turpitude depends upon the quality of crime. Brij Kishore Shukla Vs MPSRT Corporation, 1995 (5) SLR (MP) 537. 13. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention cited the judgment given in Kuldeep Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1994 P&H 242, in which the Punjab & Haryana High Court observed as under: Whether an offence involves moral delinquency is a question of fact depending on the public morals of the time; common sense of community and context and purpose for which the character of offence is to be determined. In common parlance moral turpitude means baseness of character. Concise Oxford Dictionary defines moral concerned with goodness or badness of character or disposition or with distinction between right and wrong... virtuous in general conduct... Page 8 of 17

Turpitude means baseness, depravity, wickedness. Thus any act which contrary to good morals from society s point of view will come within the ambit of moral turpitude. Dealing with the term moral turpitude this Court in case reported as Durga Singh Vs State of Punjab, AIR 1957 Punjab 97, held as under:- The term moral turpitude is rather vague one and it may have different meanings in different contexts. The term has generally been taken to mean to be a conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals and contrary to what a man owes to a fellow-man or to society in general. It has never been held that gravity of punishment is to be considered in determining whether the misconduct involves moral turpitude or not. 14. He also cited the judgment given by the Hon ble Apex Court in Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 17, in which the Hon ble Court with regard to moral turpitude has observed as under: - 12. "Moral turpitude" is an expression which is used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity. The government of Haryana while considering the question of rehabilitation of exconvicts took a policy decision on February 2, 1973 (Annexure E in the Paper Book), accepting the recommendations of the Government of India, that ex-convicts who were convicted for offences involving moral turpitude should not however be taken in government Page 9 of 17

service. A list of offences which were considered involving moral turpitude was prepared for information and guidance in that connection. Significantly Section 294 IPC is not found enlisted in the list of offences constituting moral turpitude. Later, on further consideration, the government of Haryana on 17/26th March, 1975 explained the policy decision of February 2, 1973 and decided to modify the earlier decision by streamlining determination of moral turpitude as follows :... 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. Decision in each case will, however, depend on the circumstances of the case and the competent authority has to exercise its discretion while taking a decision in accordance with the above mentioned principles. A list of offences which involve moral turpitude is enclosed for your information and guidance. This list, however, cannot be said to be exhaustive and there might be offence which are not included in it but which in certain situations and circumstances may involve moral turpitude. Page 10 of 17

15. During the course of arguments it was also contended that as per the liberty given by Hon ble Patna High Court the applicant also submitted representation for retirement benefits, but that was also not properly adjudicated. The applicant is entitled for full pension benefits as there is a gap of more than 4 years between the date of arrest and the date of retirement. Thus, a prayer is made to promote the applicant to the rank of Subedar and award him all the consequential benefits including pensionary benefits. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated that as per the policy No.20/1981 the applicant was not entitled for promotion as he was involved in a murder case. The said case is still pending. It is contended that the main allegation of shooting and killing is against the applicant and as the applicant is facing a case of murder, a most heinous offence, which reflects and adversely affects his image, character and lowers the prestige in the society, he has rightly been held involved in a case of moral turpitude. It is further submitted that the authorities cited by learned counsel for the applicant do not help the applicant s case. On the contrary, the Apex Court in Hikmat Ali Khan vs. Ishwar Prasad Arya & Ors. (1997) 3 SCC 131 has observed that a Page 11 of 17

person is involved in a case of attempt to murder will be deemed to be involved in moral turpitude. Para 6 of the said judgment reads as under: - 6. We will now come to D. C. Appeal No. 17-A of 1984 filed by the appellant which raises the question whether the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U. P. in its (order) dated March 25, 1984, is adequate having regard to the gravity of the mis-conduct of respondent No. 1. The misconduct of respondent No. 1 that has been found established is that he had assaulted his opponent, Shri Radhey Shyam with a knife in the Court room and he has been convicted of the his offence under Section 307, IPC and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. It has also been found established that the name of respondent No. 1 was contained in Register No. 8 maintained at Kotwali Badaun which is a register wherein the names of bad characters are entered. The acts of mis-conduct found established are serious in nature. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the Act the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar] Council is empowered to pass an order imposing punishment on an advocate found guilty of professional or other mis-conduct. Such punishment can be reprimand [Clause (b)], suspension from practice for a certain period [Clause (c)] and removal of the name of the advocate from the State roll of advocate [Clause (d)], depending on the gravity of the mis-conduct found established. The punishment of removal of the name from the roll of advocates is called for where the misconduct is such as to show that the advocate is unworthy of remaining in the profession. In this context, it may be pointed Page 12 of 17

out that under Section 24(A) of the Act a person who is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude is disqualified for being admitted as an advocate on the State roll of advocates. This means that the conduct involving conviction of an offence involving moral turpitude which would disqualify a person from being enrolled as an advocate has to be considered a serious misconduct when found to have been committed by a person who is enrolled as an advocate and it would call for the imposition of the punishment of removal of the name of the advocate from the roll of advocates. In the instant case respondent No. 1 has been convicted of the offence of attempting to commit murder punishable under Section 307, IPC. He had assaulted his opponent in the Court room with a knife. The gravity of the mis-conduct committed by him is such as to show that he is unworthy of remaining in the profession. The said misconduct, therefore, called for the imposition of the punishment of removal of the name of respondent No. 1 from the State roll of advocates and the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U. P., in passing the punishment of debarring respondent No. 1 from practising for a period of three years, has failed to take note of gravity of the misconduct committed by respondent No. 1. Having regard to the facts of the case the proper punishment to be imposed on respondent No. 1 under Section 35 of the Act should have been to direct the removal of his name from the State roll of advocates. The appeal filed by the appellant, therefore, deserves to be allowed. Page 13 of 17

17. He also cited the judgment given in Allahabad Bank & Anr. vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola (1997) 4 SCC 1. In that judgment the Hon ble Supreme Court has held as under: 8. What is an offence involving "moral turpitude" must depend upon the facts of each case. But whatever may be the meaning which may be given to the term "moral turpitude" it appears to us that one of the most serious offences involving "moral turpitude" would be where a person employed in a banking company dealing with money of the general public, commits forgery and wrongfully withdraws money which he is not entitled to withdraw. 18. Learned counsel for the respondents also cited the judgment decision given in J. Jaishankar vs. Government of India & Anr. (1996) 6 SCC 204 in which the Hon ble Apex Court held: An offence under Section 509 IPC had attained finality, it undoubtedly involves moral turpitude as it is impermissible for such an employee to continue in service. 19. It was also contended that as the applicant was facing criminal case yet that has not been finalised, therefore, he was not entitled for DRC and full pensionary benefits. That aspect has Page 14 of 17

rightly been considered by the concerned authority and he had been intimated accordingly. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, at present the applicant is facing criminal trial in a murder case and the said case is pending disposal, his name was mentioned in the FIR, thereafter, challan has been filed and after taking cognizance of the offence, the case is pending under murder trial. Therefore, at this stage, any comment on the merit of the case is not desirable, but to our mind it reflects his image and reputation in society, thus until the case is pending he would be held involved in criminal case bearing moral turpitude, which, under the abovementioned policy A.O. 20/1981, debars him for promotion. 21. We have perused the notes as well as the observations made in the judgments cited by the applicant. In case of Kuldeep Singh (supra) the matter was related to Punjab Cooperative Societies election petition and under Rule 14 of Rules of 65 under the Act involving in a criminal case of moral turpitude was in different shape. But the factual aspect of this case is different. Thus, that case is not helping the contention of the applicant. Page 15 of 17

Likewise, in another case of Pawan Kumar (supra) in which the petitioner was found guilty in a case of an offence against obscenity under Section 294 of IPC. That type of offence was not enlisted in the list of offences published by the State of Haryana showing the offences of moral turpitude. Secondly, the offence of obscenity cannot be equated with the offence of murder. Thus, this judgment also does not help the contention of the applicant. 22. On the contrary, the Hon ble Apex Court in case of Hikmat Ali Khan (supra) and in case of J. Jaishankar (supra) has observed that even if a person is involved in a case of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC or in a case of Section 509 IPC it will be deemed to be a case of moral turpitude. Other case cited by the respondent also support the same. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, the applicant, who was though recommended for promotion to the rank of Subedar, but as he was found involved in a criminal case being of moral turpitude, his promotion was rightly been withheld. No interference is warranted at this stage. We have also considered the contention raised with regard to the pension and DCRG issue. The applicant filed representation in this respect. The concerned authority has considered all the issues as the applicant is facing criminal trial, Page 16 of 17

still case has not been finalised. Therefore, considering the provisions of Regulations 3 & 4 of Pension Regulations, 1961 the applicant is not entitled to full pension and DCRG benefits. He has already been granted provisional pension and that has been revised as per rules on 22.09.1999 (Annexure R/E). 23. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present application is liable to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs. M.L. NAIDU (Administrative Member) MANAK MOHTA (Judicial Member) Announced in the open Court on this 04 th day of March, 2011 Page 17 of 17