Case Details: Dana Ram v. State of Rajasthan
Before: Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur
Court: Rajasthan High Court

Court’s Ruling on Scrutiny of Criminal Cases in Government Appointments

In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court has held that the candidature of a meritorious candidate for a government job cannot be rejected merely on the ground that a criminal complaint has been filed against him. The Court emphasized that the Government must carefully scrutinize the facts of each case to determine whether the act alleged against the candidate amounts to moral turpitude before declaring him ineligible for appointment.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Dana Ram, was a successful candidate for the post of Government Teacher and his name was duly included in the list of selected candidates. However, before the declaration of the final result, a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was lodged against him by his wife, alleging cruelty by husband or in-laws. Based on this, the authorities cancelled his appointment, leading him to approach the High Court.

The petitioner contended that the criminal case had arisen solely due to marital discord and that the allegations did not constitute an offence of moral turpitude. He further relied upon a Department of Personnel circular dated December 12, 2019, which required the Government to examine the nature of the allegations before arriving at a decision. However, according to him, the authorities rejected his candidature mechanically, without evaluating the factual background of the case.

Court’s Observations

Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, while analyzing the matter, observed that not every FIR or even conviction should automatically disqualify a candidate. The Court stressed the importance of evaluating each case individually to assess whether the alleged act was of such nature as to reflect adversely on the character of the candidate.

The Court remarked:

“Each individual case is required to be examined from the angle whether the act/offence committed by such person involves moral turpitude or not… Without examining each case on the facts and circumstances of that criminal case, the candidature cannot be rejected merely on the ground that an FIR/Charge-sheet has been filed.”

It was further clarified that the Departmental Circular could not be applied in a mechanical manner. Instead, authorities must assess whether the nature of the alleged offence impacts the candidate’s character and suitability for public service.

Principle Laid Down

The High Court elaborated the guiding principle in such cases:

• If the alleged act/offence committed by a candidate involves moral turpitude, and
• If such conduct would negatively affect the discharge of duties of the public post,

only then can the candidate be disentitled from appointment. Mere registration of an FIR or pendency of a case cannot be equated with a finding of bad character.

Decision of the Court

Since the Government had rejected the petitioner’s candidature solely on the ground of his involvement in a 498A case, without undertaking any factual scrutiny of the allegations, the High Court found the decision contrary to law.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the authorities were directed to reconsider the petitioner’s case in light of the facts and circumstances of the criminal complaint against him.

This judgment reinforces the principle that rejection of government job candidature cannot be based merely on the existence of a criminal case. What matters is whether the offence involves moral turpitude and impacts the candidate’s suitability for public service.

The Hon’ble Supreme court of India has given test to determine on What basis we can say that act involves moral turpitude:- The court said that following tests that can be applied for judging an offence involving moral turpitude:

                Whether the act leading to a conviction was  such as could shock the moral conscience or society in general

             Whether the motive which led to the act was a base one
             Whether on account of the act having been committed the perpetrators could be considered toy. be of a depraved character or a person who
was to be looked down upon by the society.

Bombay High court has held :- A candidate’s involvement in an activity associated with gambling certainly amounts to moral turpitude and writ courts cannot order an employer to consider such a person for public service, especially in judiciary.

Sexual offences against Children fals under definition of Moral turpitude.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that an acquittal granted on the ground of “benefit of doubt” in cases involving allegations of moral turpitude does not automatically disqualify a candidate from appointment in the Armed Forces.

The Kerala High Court has ruled that under Section 6(2)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, the passport authority cannot deny issuance of a passport to a person found guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that the conviction is not within five years prior to the date of submitting the passport application.

Conclusion:-

Diffrent judgment has been decided by honble courts in which if moral turpitude involved, it would affect on your government jobs appointment it depends on case to case.

For any Further Queries you can contact us :-