By Prof. Dewakar Goel

 

Generally the moment we hear about moral turpitude the offence involving molestation, eve-teasing, sexual harassment and outraging the modesty of women comes to our mind, whereas this offence is having much wider scope and meaning. Therefore, it is necessary to know more about it. We know that conviction for offences involving moral turpitude in a criminal court is generally mentioned as misconduct in standing orders service rules. In the event of such a conviction, services of the employee can be terminated discharged. But the problem is how to determine what is moral   turpitude.

 

It is not true that every act punishable under law as an offence can be considered as moral turpitude. Since no enactment has defined the term, often baffling, situations arise, some courts in their judgments have tried to discuss and analyze the term Moral Turpitude in various situations brought before them for consideration. Moral turpitude’ as expressed in some judgments, means “anything contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. It implies depravity, wickedness of character of disposition of the person charged with the particular misconduct. It includes an act of baseness or willingness in private or social duties which a man owes being a member of the society”. Whether a particular act is moral or immoral, it is to be considered as to how the community views that act. It has to be determined not on obstruct notions of the rights and wrongs involved or harm done but how the people look upon that act.                                                              

 

The full bench of Allahabad High Court in case of Budha Pillai v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, AIR, 1965 p.382 held that ‘offence involving moral turpitude’ show that the stress is on the ingredient of the offence and not on the concrete facts or the act actually done. It should be borne in mind that it has a wider social connotation than the element of baseness in character. The test of morality is not in the abstract but it considers, taking the nature of employment into account whether the alleged offence renders the employee unfit to perform his duties without affecting the business adversely. If the conviction of an employee is such which is likely to lower the reputation of the management in the eyes of the public, his services can be discharged/terminated.

 

Again High Court of Allahabad in case of   Baleshwai Singh v. Distt. Magistrate, AIR 1963p.71, laid down tests for making an offence involving moral turpitude such as Whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the moral conscience of the society in general ? Whether the motive that led to the act was a base one?   Whether on account of the act having been committed the perpetrator could be considered to be a deprived character or a person who was to be looked down upon by the society?

 

The concept of morality, however, may change from place to place and situation to situation. It involves an act, which is considered contrary to the accepted, customary norms of people. In nuclear situations, a reasonable inference can be drawn. A man who commits an offence transgresses some legal obligations and infringes on some moral sentiments as built up through moral social and economic standards of the community. An action thus though punishable may not all the time be considered socially or morally blameworthy such as conviction for violation of traffic laws or an act down in self-defense or with a noble motive. Mere detention under the Preventive Detention Act may not be immoral.

Contd……P/2

 

Since The Situation Varies from Case to Case it is therefore, necessary to see the nature of offence as also the act for treating an offence involving moral turpitude. It can be easily understood when we talk about prohibition of mixing colors because while mixing color in the sweet if the motive is detected to be greed, it may be considered immoral but if it is done to make the article look more attractive, it is not an immoral act. Another example can be given of a person who is convicted for causing grievous hurt to another and for exceeding the right of self-defense but would hardly involve moral turpitude. An offence generally considered as involving moral turpitude might not be so when committed in particular circumstances. Similarly an eve-teaser or a goonda may be beaten by a group of persons out of righteous indignation at his misconduct. The persons would definitely deserve punishment for taking the law into their own hands, but the same would not involve moral turpitude.

 

We must bear in mind that an employee though leading a dissolute life may yet be efficient in his work, the management is concerned with private life and morals of employees only if they affect their efficiency in work or discipline. The provisions as contained in standing orders would state whether an act or omission was misconduct. An employee found in a drunken state and behaving indecently in a public place may commit an offence involving moral turpitude. 

 

The word drunk does not signify that a person has taken wine. It goes further as clarified by Bombay High Court in the case of State v. Trimback Dhandhu AIR 1955 (Bom.) p. 4498 that the person has been overcome by alcohol or is intoxicated. The mere consumption of liquor in violation of the Prohibition Act during festival days may not be considered misconduct. Gambling on work premises when prohibited by standing order will be misconduct. A circular prohibiting gambling inside or near about the factory premises or company quarters would not replace certified standing orders. An employee thus found gambling outside the factory does not commit misconduct. Keeping a gambling house contrary to law, however, involve moral turpitude. The difference between the misconduct enumerated in standing orders, and the infringement of law as also commission of offence involving moral turpitude needs to be fully understood and action taken accordingly.

 

On conviction for offence involving moral turpitude, services of the employee can be terminated without necessitating and domestic inquiry, including situations where the offence has been un-connected with his employment and the management considers that due to such conviction it is undesirable to continue him any more in employment. Not only this but the Madras High Court (xix FJR 251) held “Even if the standing orders did not provide for a case in which an employee happened to be convicted in a competent criminal court for an offence involving moral turpitude, it would be unreasonable to contend that despite such a conviction he would still be deemed not to have committed any misconduct so as to justify his removal from service.”

 

To determine whether a case involves moral turpitude, it would thus be expedient to consider the facts and circumstances of each case in which the offence was committed as also the social and moral values. Let us see as to how the concept of moral turpitude has been used in terms of various Court judgments

 

Contd……P/3

 

 

In case of Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra 1997 (77) FLR 918 (Del.H.C.) it was observed thatRespondent was dismissed from service on charge of “tried to molest” Miss Suchitra Vishnoi. Learned single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that there was no evidence. In this appeal Division Bench agreed with the said finding. On going through evidence of Suchitra Vishnoi, it is found that there was no physical contact with Suchitra even in narrow confines of a Hotel “Lift”. There was thus no evidence of molestation or assault. Respondent was rightly held entitled to continue with his employment and he is also entitled to back wages.

                    While giving the judgment in case of State of Tamil Nadu v. M. Natarajan 1997 II CLR 407 (S.C.) the Court ruled that “Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against respondents – police officers for misconduct of misbehaving with two ladies. They did not appear before Enquiry Officer inspite of several opportunities given to them on the ground of pendency of criminal cases against them. Enquiry Officer proceeded exparte and submitted his report holding the respondents guilty. He recommended punishment of stoppage of the three increments. Disciplinary Authority after notice to the respondents imposed punishment of removal from service. Administrative Tribunal having allowed their challenge, this appeal is filed to Supreme Court. While allowing the appeal, it is held that no procedural illegalities were committed in conducting the enquiry and the Tribunal was not justified in reaching the conclusion it reached it is quite interesting to know as to how the offence of moral turpitude was taken by various Courts depending upon facts and circumstances of individual cases. In case of Baleshwar Singh v. District magistrate , AIR 1959 AII.71 the court held “The expression ‘moral turpitude’ is not defined anywhere. But it means anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. It implies depravity and wickedness of character or disposition of the persons charges with the particular conduct. Every false statement made by a person may not be ‘moral turpitude’ but it would be so if it discloses vileness and depravity in the doing of any private or social duty which a person owes to fellowmen or to his society in general” while as per judgement in case of Balubhai Amindas Khristi v. state of Gujrat.(1978)2 SLR(Guj.). 8151.It was observed “It appears both by dictionary meaning as well as by decided cases that a conduct could be said to involve moral turpitude which inculcates in its folds baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen , or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man. In other words, it must be a conduct, involving infringement of the moral sentiment of the community which would shock the conscious of the society in which the man lives and the conduct must be examined in relation to the office held by a person whose conduct is examined.” In another case of State of Tamil nadu v.P.M. Belliappa, 1985 Lab.IC 51 the court held “We have to point out that the expressions “moral turpitude or delinquency” are not to receive a narrow construction and it would include conduct contrary to and oppose to good morals and which is unethical. The said expressions have not found a categoric definition anywhere, but we can safely take it that it would include anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals and contrary to what a man owes to a fellow man or to society in general. It would imply depravity and wickedness of character or disposition of the person charged with the particular conduct. It may also include an act which shocks the moral conscience of society in general.

 

Contd……P/4

 

It is by now well settled that the misconduct or unbecoming conduct or conduct of moral turpitude need not necessarily relate to an activity in the course of the employment and it could relate to an activity outside the scope of the employment” (para 20) “. Further the matter was clarified in case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Workmen, (1996) XIII FJR 139  when it was held “It is not the quantum of punishment that an offence will attract, that will determine the question whether it involves moral turpitude. An offence of a petty theft may make the offender liable to a mere punishment of fine but there can be no doubt that every offence of theft , however petty, would involve moral turpitude , because it involves dishonesty and is against the establishment moral standards of integrity and accepted rule of good conduct. But even an offence of causing grievous hurt under Section 325, IPC while it may make the offender liable to heavy sentence of imprisonment may not in the circumstances of particular case involve moral turpitude. For instance, a person may be convicted of grievous hurt in exceeding the right of private defence and yet the offence would hardly involve moral turpitude”.