M ANJAIAH Vs. PRAGA TOOLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking to quash the order dated 14/02/1986 dismissing him from service on the solitary ground that he was convicted by the X Metro-politan Magistrate, Secunderabad in S.T.C. No. 13 of 1986 dated 7/01/1986 for an offence punishable under Section 186 I.P.C. and Section 70-B of the Hyderabad City Police Act. The facts are not in dispute.

(2.) The petitioner has been working as Security Guard of the respondent. On 24/12/1985, during night time on the festive Christmas day, the petitioner in the company of his friends was found to have been drunk and was alleged to have beaten two persons. As a result, police charge-sheeted the petitioner for the offence of affray and on receipt of summons, to avoid protraction in the proceedings, he pleaded guilty and accordingly was convicted and sentenced to pay fine. On receipt of the order, the management of the first respondent, by he impugned proceedings and in exercise of the power under Clause 23(35) of the Standing Orders which defined that conviction by a Criminal Court for moral turpitude - a mis-conduct read with Clause 27 (which dispenses with enquiry and be a basis for dismissal), dismissed the petitioner from service.

(3.) Sri Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that drinking today and quarrelling at a private place between two individuals though is an offence of affray punishable under the above provisions, does not involve moral turpitude. Therefore, mere conviction on that basis does not entail the petitioner with dismissal from service. On the other hand, Sri P. L. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent has contemplated that once the petitioner out-stepped his limits and was found in a drunken brawl, had beaten the members of the society, it is a moral turpitude as a transgression of the moral duty he owes to the society. Since it is an offence punishable under Section 186 IPC and Sec, 70-B of the City Police Act, the management has rightly dismissed him on the conviction given by the Criminal Court. In support thereof, he placed strong reliance on the decision reported in Durga Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR) 1957 Pun. & Har. 97. The question, is therefore, whether drinking alcohol or toddy and in that drunken brawl, had quarrel between two individuals amounts to moral turpitude. In Words & Phrases, Permanent Edition. Volume 27, at page 556, "Moral turpitude" has been defined thus :