RAJPAL SINGH NAHAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the request of learned counsel for the parties and since pleadings are complete, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) By the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 15.06.2016 (Annexure- P/5) passed by the District Education Officer, Sehore, terminating the services of the petitioner due to his conviction in a criminal case, so also the order dated 07.03.2017 (Annexure-P/9) by which an appeal preferred by the petitioner, was also dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the offences under which the petitioner has been convicted, do not fall within the definition of moral turpitude. He submits that even though in a list filed by him categorizing the offences which come under the definition of moral turpitude though the offences under Sections 148 and 149 of IPC, do fall within the said category, but still in view of the various decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court, the same cannot be considered to be of moral turpitude taking note of the role of the petitioner in the alleged crime, in which he has been convicted. He has placed reliance on various decisions of various Courts, they are - 2011(4) MPLJ 452 (R.P. Dwivedi Vs. SECL); 2011(2) MPLJ 267 (Shriram Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and Others); 2008 (3) SCC 273 (State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Hazarilal); 2000(2) Gauhati Law Reports 612 (Har Kumar Das Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Ors.) and judgment passed in W.P. No.8645/2016 (Sita Ram Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others) and W.A. No.955/2018 (The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sita Ram Sharma) so also the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7011/2009 (The State Bank of India and Others Vs. P. Soupramaniane).