Mere Conviction Not Enough for Dismissal If Offence Lacks Moral Turpitude: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by the State government challenging the reinstatement of an Assistant Teacher who had been dismissed from service following his conviction in a criminal case, holding that the offence in question did not involve moral turpitude and that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi affirmed the order of the Single Judge which had quashed the dismissal and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits and interest.

The appeal arose from an order passed in a writ petition filed by Man Singh Rajput, who was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1988 upon the recommendation of a duly constituted selection committee. While serving at a Government Primary School in Shajapur district, he was placed under suspension in 2016 following the registration of a criminal case against him under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 307 (attempt to murder), Section 147, 148, 149 (rioting and unlawful assembly). Although his suspension was initially revoked in 2017, he was again placed under suspension in 2019 after being detained for more than forty-eight hours in connection with the same criminal case.

In November 2022, the petitioner was convicted by a Sessions Court for offences under Sections 148 (rioting with deadly weapon) and 325 (grievous hurt) read with Section 149 of the IPC and was sentenced to simple imprisonment. His sentence was later suspended in appeal. Relying upon the conviction, the competent authority dismissed him from service in March 2023 by invoking Rule 19(1) read with Rule 10(9) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, citing a government circular which permits dismissal without departmental enquiry in cases involving moral turpitude.

Challenging the dismissal, the petitioner/respondent approached the High Court, contending that the offence for which he had been convicted did not fall within the ambit of moral turpitude and that automatic dismissal without consideration of surrounding circumstances was arbitrary. The Single Judge accepted this contention and directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits along with interest at six per cent per annum.

Aggrieved by this decision, the State preferred the present writ appeal. Appearing for the State, Government Advocate Surendra Kumar Gupta argued that once an employee stands convicted in a criminal case, the disciplinary authority is empowered to dismiss him from service without conducting a departmental enquiry. It was submitted that the Single Judge had erred in overlooking the binding nature of the government circular dated February 8, 1999.

Opposing the appeal, counsel for the respondent, L.C. Patne, supported the reasoning adopted by the Single Judge and contended that the offence under Section 325 IPC does not involve moral turpitude. He further submitted that settled judicial precedents require the disciplinary authority to assess the nature of the offence and the proportionality of the punishment.

After considering the rival submissions, the Division Bench found no merit in the State’s appeal. The Court relied upon the Full Bench decision in Laxmi Narayan Hayaran v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which had held that while dismissal based on conviction is permissible, courts exercising judicial review can examine whether the disciplinary authority considered relevant factors and whether the punishment imposed is excessive. The Bench noted that dismissal is ordinarily justified in cases involving corruption, but not in cases of minor offences lacking moral turpitude.

Applying these principles to the present case, the Court observed that the respondent had been convicted under Section 325 IPC, which does not fall within the category of offences involving moral turpitude under the applicable government circular. The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in State Bank of India v. P. Soupramaniane, where dismissal was set aside on similar grounds.

Holding that the Single Judge’s order suffered from no illegality or perversity, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, thereby upholding the reinstatement of the Assistant Teacher with all consequential benefits.

Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Man Singh Rajput

Date of Judgment: January 30, 2026

Bench: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi