cLetters Patent Appeal No.1111 OF 2000 SHIO BIHARI RAI ------------------(Appellant) -Versus- THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. -----(Respondents) ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Lallan Singh. For the Respondent : Mr. Prasoon Sinha, G.A. III. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH J U D G M E N T Barin Ghosh & J.N. Singh, J.J. The appellant was involved in a criminal case. In connection therewith, he was put under suspension on 17th June, 1977. On 16th September, 1982, the appellant was convicted in the said case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Against the conviction, appellant filed an appeal. The Appellate Court by its Judgment and Order dated 16th April, 1986 had set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereupon on 4th March, 1991, by the order impugned in the writ petition, the appellant was dismissed from service. Before the order dismissing the appellant was passed, 2 the Government took opinion from a learned lawyer. He opined that conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code did not establish moral turpitude of the convict. Principally for the said opinion of the learned lawyer, the appellant contended that having regard to the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, it was unjust to pass the impugned order dismissing him from service. Great effort was made to show and demonstrate what moral turpitude means. In the Judgment and Order under appeal, the learned Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, to our mind correctly expressed that the true meaning of the word moral turpitude is baseness which shocks the conscience of the society as a whole and an action which resulted in on conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be not of moral turpitude. The learned counsel for the appellant wanted us to go into the correctness of the Judgment rendered in the criminal appeal convicting the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. We refrained ourselves from doing so, as we cannot do so. The learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that the fact remains that the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was converted into a conviction 3 under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and as a result, there is a pronouncement that the criminal act on the part of the appellant was of lesser intensity. It was submitted that in such back ground applying the standards pertaining to moral turpitude and keeping in view 30 years of service of the appellant before his removal, the Court should consider whether it was appropriate to pass the impugned order dismissing the appellant from service. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the power of the State to dismiss an employee arises from his conviction and in that regard, it would be an ideal formality to find out whether the act leading to conviction can be equated as moral turpitude or not. Article 311 of the Constitution grants protection to a Government employee from dismissal. The said Article, however, makes it abundantly clear that such protection is not applicable, in case, the order of dismissal is based on conviction. That suggests that the moment an employee is convicted of an offence, he is exposed to dismissal from the service. An act, which has led to a conviction should always be deemed to be an act conducted without moral or with low moral and as such should be deemed to be an act attracting moral 4 turpitude. It would be shocking for a civilized society to know that one of the employees employed for serving the society has been convicted and for that reason, all convictions should be deemed to be acts of moral turpitude. However, each and every conviction may not result in an order of dismissal. It is well within the competence of the Government to say that since the conviction was for a petty offence, it would not exercise its power of dismissal on the basis of such conviction. However, when a conviction entails life imprisonment or minimum of years, it would be extremely difficult for a Judicial Review Court to pronounce that a decision to dismiss based on such conviction is not appropriate. In the circumstances, we have no other option but to dismiss the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Patna High Court, 04th July, 2008, S.B.P. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (J.N. Singh, J.)