01Facts
The petitioner, an EP Mazdoor at Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL), was convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on July 21, 2017, in C.P. Case No. 2027 of 2009
¶ 3Following the conviction, the management issued a show-cause notice on October 13, 2017, citing Clause 26.1.19 of the Certified Standing Orders, which classifies conviction for an offence involving "moral turpitude" as serious misconduct warranting dismissal
¶ 4After considering the petitioner’s reply, the respondents passed Order No. 1346 dated November 4/6, 2017, dismissing him from service
¶ 2, 4The petitioner challenged the dismissal, arguing that an offence under Section 498-A IPC does not constitute moral turpitude
¶ 602Issues
i.1. Whether a conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC constitutes an offence involving "moral turpitude" under Clause 26.1.19 of the Certified Standing Orders
¶ 6, 8ii.2. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner from service based on such conviction was legally sustainable
¶ 1503Law Applied
Clause 26.1.19 of the Certified Standing Orders of BCCL, which mandates dismissal for offences involving moral turpitude
¶ 4Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Regional Manager, PNB (2010), defining moral turpitude as conduct contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals
¶ 10Baleshwar Singh v. District Magistrate (1959) and Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana (1996), which describe it as conduct that is inherently base, vile, or depraved
¶ 12, 14Narendra Ramdas Borse v. State of Maharashtra (2018) and Vincent Varghese v. State Bank of India (1998), were cited to establish that Section 498-A IPC (cruelty by husband or relatives) squarely falls within the ambit of moral turpitude
¶ 13, 14Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 182Section 299Section 300Section 302Section 498
04Reasoning
The Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on Sarju Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, noting that the said case involved Section 302 IPC and did not support the petitioner's claim that Section 498-A lacks the element of moral turpitude
¶ 7-8The Court reasoned that "moral turpitude" refers to acts that gravely violate community standards of justice and good morals
¶ 9By examining Section 498-A IPC, the Court observed that subjecting a woman to cruelty is inherently base and depraved conduct in a civilized society
¶ 14Relying on the Kerala and Bombay High Court decisions, the Court held that since the petitioner was convicted of an offence that shocks the moral sense of the community, the management was under an obligation to discontinue his services
¶ 13-15The Court found that the disciplinary procedure, including the issuance of a show-cause notice, was duly followed
¶ 1505Holding
The Court held that a conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC involves moral turpitude, and therefore, the petitioner had no right to remain in service under the Certified Standing Orders
¶ 15The Court affirmed the dismissal order dated November 4/6, 2017, finding it strictly in accordance with the law
¶ 15The writ petition was dismissed without costs
¶ 16Original Court PDF
DILIP KUMARvsBHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
