SATISH KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

(2.) It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier petitioner was working as Home- Guard Sainik in the office of Divisional Commandant, Home Guard Bahodapur, Gwalior. A case was registered against him for offence under Sec. 376(2)(n) of the IPC and trial was conducted. Meanwhile, petitioner was removed from job. Vide order dtd. 17/11/2022 since prosecutrix did not support the story of prosecution and declared hostile, therefore, acquittal has been recorded in favour of petitioner. Now petitioner is again seeking employment on the strength of his acquittal.

(3.) Learned Government Advocate for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that matter involves moral turpitude because the petitioner faced allegation for offence under Sec. 376(2)(n) of the IPC. When an employee suffers allegations under moral turpitude then it is no case for consideration by the department. He referred the list of different offences categorized under different category in which offence under Sec. 376 of IPC consist of moral turpitude and therefore, petitioner cannot be considered for reinstatement or giving fresh appointment on the post of Home-Guard Sainik.