Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Service Termination Case Concerning Conviction Under Section 294 IPC. Conviction Per Se Under Section 294 IPC Does Not Involve Moral Turpitude and Termination Based on Such Conviction Without Applying Policy Tests Is Illegal.

Case Note & Summary

The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from the judgment and decree of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.3756 of 1987, which had affirmed the termination of the appellant from government service. The appellant was appointed on 19-4-1978 as a Class IV Field Worker on ad hoc basis in the office of the Chief Medical Officer, General Hospital, Bhiwani, Haryana. His appointment was subject to verification of character and antecedents, and he was required to furnish a declaration that he had not been previously dismissed from service or convicted by any court. While in service, on 4-6-1980, the appellant was convicted in a summary trial under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, on his plea of guilt, and fined Rs.20, which he paid immediately. His ad hoc appointment was renewed from time to time. When steps were taken to regularise his services, the Superintendent of Police reported the factum of conviction but otherwise verified his good character. The District Attorney opined that the offence did not involve moral turpitude and that the fine was not likely to embarrass him in discharge of duties. However, the Legal Remembrancer to the Government of Haryana opined that the conviction involved moral turpitude and that appointment would be undesirable. Based on this, the appellant's services were terminated vide order dated 30-9-1984 as no longer required. The appellant filed a civil suit for declaration that the termination order was against law, equity, good conscience, and violative of principles of natural justice, claiming that he continued in service entitled to all benefits. The trial court, the lower appellate court, and the High Court all upheld the termination, holding that conviction under Section 294 IPC per se constituted moral turpitude and that the termination order was not stigmatic. The core legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether conviction under Section 294 IPC per se involves moral turpitude; whether the summary conviction recorded on a plea of guilt was valid when the summary register did not disclose the substance of allegations or the words of the plea; whether the termination order was illegal and violative of natural justice; and whether the government policy decisions dated 2-2-1973 and 17/26-3-1975 required application of specific tests before treating an offence as involving moral turpitude. The appellant contended that the termination was illegal and that he continued in service. The respondents contended that the conviction under Section 294 IPC revealed an act which per se constituted moral turpitude, justifying denial of regularisation and termination, and that the termination order on its plain language was not stigmatic. The Supreme Court examined the essential ingredients of Section 294 IPC, which requires an obscene act or obscene song/words in or near a public place and annoyance to others. It also analysed the summary trial procedure under Sections 260, 264, 375, and 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, noting that when an accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate must record the substance of evidence and put the substance of allegations to the accused; otherwise the plea is legally ineffective. The Court found that the summary register did not disclose the substance of allegations or the words of the plea, and that mere payment of fine did not establish a valid conviction. The Court referred to the Haryana Government policy decisions of 2-2-1973 and 17/26-3-1975, which listed offences involving moral turpitude and provided tests: whether the act shocks the moral conscience of society, whether the motive was base, and whether the perpetrator could be considered of depraved character. Section 294 IPC was not included in the list, and the policy required a case-by-case determination. The Court held that conviction under Section 294 IPC on its own would not involve moral turpitude, and the authorities erred in treating it as per se involving moral turpitude without applying the policy tests. The Court deprecated the action of the respondents in adversely certifying the appellant's character based solely on the conviction. It also drew the attention of Parliament to the harsh consequences of summary convictions for petty offences, recommending that fines up to Rs.2000 on summary conviction should not be treated as conviction for any purpose, particularly for government service. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court as well as those of the two courts below, and decreed the suit as prayed for with costs.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court and those of the two courts below, and decreed the appellant's suit as prayed for with costs. The Court held that a conviction under Section 294 IPC on its own does not involve moral turpitude; the authorities must apply the tests in the government policy decisions before rejecting a candidate; and the summary conviction was procedurally deficient as the substance of allegations was not recorded. The Court deprecated the adverse certification of character based solely on the conviction and recommended legislative reform to prevent petty convictions from ending careers.

Law Points