D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 325/2008 Date : 02.05.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. HON'BLE MR. CHAND MAL TOTLA, J. Mr. B.N. Kalla for the appellant. = = = = Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant was posted as Constable and was accused for committing offences under Section 302, 307, 302, 326 and under Section 27 of Arms Act. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act. He was awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500 and in default of fine, to undergo one months' imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and under Section 27 of Arms Act, rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of fine, to undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment. The appellant also faces the departmental inquiry. It is stated that the appellant's conviction under Section 307 IPC was set aside in Appeal No. 27/1987 and his conviction has been altered to conviction under Section 324 IPC. According to learned counsel for the appellant, conviction under Section 324 IPC is not a conviction affecting moral turpitude as held by this Court in the case of Hanuman Singh Vs. State of Raj. & anr reported in 1991(1) RLR 163. In the said case, this Court observed that conviction under Section 323 IPC cannot be said to be an offence involving moral turpitude. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 wherein, on acquittal of employee in criminal trial, Supreme Court held that when employee has been honourably acquitted in criminal trial, then the order of dismissal cannot be sustained. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the reasons given in the impugned order (Annex.2). It appears from the facts of the case that appellant who was in service in Armed force faced the trial for committing offence under Section 307 IPC, however, his conviction under Section 307 IPC has been altered to Section 324 IPC in appeal. The department held the inquiry and thereafter, considered this aspect of the matter and clearly observed that conviction in a criminal case or acquittal is one thing, but so far conduct of employee is concerned, for that department is competent to inquire into. The appellant has been removed from services on the ground of his conduct and not merely on the ground of his conviction under Section 324 IPC. In view of the above reasons, the judgment cited above have no application to the facts of this case. Learned Single Judge has considered this aspect of the matter and thereafter, dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any illegality in any of the order passed by disciplinary authority or by learned Single Judge. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. (CHAND MAL TOTLA), J. (PRAKASH TATIA), J.