VERMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Dr. Naresh Agarwal had qualified MBBS Examination in 1995 from RNT Medical College, Udaipur. THE Principal RNT Medical College and Controller of Associate Groups of Hospitals, Udaipur had also given a certificate of his satisfactory behaviour in the college as far back on 16. 3. 1996, copy of which is attached as Annexure-1.
(2.) DURING the time of studies in MBBS in the College, because of certain dispute during elections of the Student's Union there was some hot deliberations amongst the students for which one group of students had also lodged an FIR in the year 1994 u/s. 323 IPC. However, immediately thereafter the students had compromised on 31. 8. 1994 itself so far the offence u/s. 323 IPC was concerned, but u/s. 147 IPC, he was released under the Probation of Offenders Act as per Annexure-3. He had applied for the post of Medical Officer and was appointed on the post on 24. 6. 1998 on temporary adhoc basis. Lateron for regular selection, the vacancies were also advertised vide Annexure-4 on 22. 9. 1999. The petitioner was found suitable and was given appointment as per Annexure-5. Vide Annexure-6 his services have been terminated on 20. 12. 1999 on the plea that on character verification, it was found that he had been released under Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner has challenged Annexure-6 stating therein; (i) for some incident amongst students themselves for which there was a dispute which dispute ended into a compromise and out of that compromise if any order was passed by the court under Probation of Offenders Act, it cannot be termed to be an offence involving moral turpitude; (ii) as per Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Service Rules, 1963, a character certificate from the Principal is required to be produced to the effect which shall relate to six months prior to making of the application which certificate was furnished; (iii) no moral turpitude was involved. The relevant Rule 12 is quoted as under:- "rule 12-Character-The character of a candidate for direct recruitment to the service must be such as to qualify him for employment in the service. He must produce a certificate of good character from the Principal/academic Officer of the University or College in which he was last educated and two such certificates written not more than six months prior to the date of application from two responsible persons not connected with the College or University and not related to him. " "note- (1) A conviction by a court of law need not of itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good character. The circumstances of the conviction should be taken into account and if they involve no moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a movement which has as its object the over- throw by violent means of the government as by law established, the mere conviction need not be regarded as a disqualification. " " (2) Ex-Prisoners, who by their disciplined life while in prison and by their subsequent good conduct have proved to be completely reformed, should not be discriminated against on grounds of their previous conviction for purposes of employment in the service. Those, who are convicted of offences not involving moral turpitude or violence, shall be deemed to have been completely reformed on the production of a report to that effect from the Superintendent. After Care Home or if there are no such Homes in a particular district, from the Superintendent of Police of that district. " "those convicted of offences involving moral turpitude or violence shall be required to produce a certificate from the Superintendent. After Care Home endorsed by the Inspector General of Prisons, to the effect that they are suitable for employment as they have proved to be completely reformed by their disciplined life while in prison and by their subsequent good conduct in an After Care Home. " It is pertinent to mention here that the post of Medical Officer is included in the Schedule appended to the Rules, 1963, as such the services are governed by the present set of rules. " The petitioner had represented stating therein the facts as per representations copies of which are attached as Annexure 7 and 8; the petitioner also submits that there are many other doctors who were studying along with the petitioner at that time and were also involved in the dispute of election of the College, are still in service, even though no such plea can assist the petitioner in any way as his case is to be seen on its facts. To support his contention, the petitioner relies on a judgment Hanuman Singh vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (1), on Sunder Lal vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (2), Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another (3), and Bhanwar Lal Paliwal vs. State of Rajasthan & Others
(3.) IN the case of Hanuman Singh vs. State of Raj. & Anor. (supra), it was held that the conviction u/s. 147 and 323 IPC cannot be termed as conviction of offence involving moral turpitude. Relying on Rule 12, as reproduced above, it was held by this court that the rule making authority did not intend to exclude even convicts, Ex-prisoners, as also those convicted of offences involving moral turpitude, from the zone of consideration for the purpose of recruitment to the Subordinate Service in the Police Department and, therefore, so far as the rules of recruitment are concerned, fresh employment can be given to an Ex-Prisoners; there was hardly any justification for imposing major penalty on a Government employee, merely on the basis of his conviction for a criminal offence by a competent court of law, which does not involve of moral turpitude. It was further held that the absence of notice to show cause; there was violation of principles of natural justice in passing of the impugned order. This court in Sunder Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anor. , (supra), it was held that conviction u/s. 325 r/w 34 IPC does not involve any moral turpitude and it could not be said that the petitioner in that case had conducted himself in such a manner as to invite penalty of dismissal from service. The conduct of the petitioner when considered u/rule 4 of the Conduct Rules 1971, can be held to be improper and unbecoming conduct amongst other things when he is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude; whether in the course of discharge of his duties or otherwise. When a person is charged to have committed offence involving "moral turpitude" it may mean that such conduct is arising out of an act, which is dishonest, immoral or unethical. From the facts of the incident described above, it cannot be said that his conduct arose out of any act, which can be termed as dishonest, immoral or unethical. In Thakorbhai Bhagabhai vs. D. D. O. Surat and another (5), the petitioner was suspended on account of an offence said to have been committed under Section 323, IPC. The suspension order was quashed and set aside on the ground that the alleged offence did not involve any moral turpitude in the conduct of the petitioner. ;