The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently upheld the dismissal of an employee following his conviction in a dowry-related case [Durga Singh Chandel v The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others].Justice Vishal Dhagat said dowry demand amounts to 'moral turpitude' as it is associated with greed of a person.“Conviction of an employee under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act amounts to moral turpitude as demand of dowry is associated with greed of a person to get more money by harassing a bride or her relatives,” the Bench said..The petitioner, Durga Singh Chandel, was serving as an Assistant Revenue Inspector in Municipal Council of Khirkiya in Harda district.He moved the Court arguing that he was dismissed from service in July 2024 after completing 28 years of service. The same was done without any full-fledged departmental enquiry.Chandel said that though he was convicted in the case under Section 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, his sentence of two years and six months has been suspended by the High Court.On the other hand, a government counsel said the action was taken after a question was raised in the legislative assembly. A resolution was passed by the President-in-Council and the petitioner was removed from service, the Court was told.It was argued that the action was taken in accordance with a 1999 circular which states that if a government employee is convicted in a criminal case involving moral turpitude, then order of dismissal is to be passed under Rule 10 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1966. The State counsel added that detailed a departmental enquiry is not necessary under Rules 14 and 19 and under Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India. .Considering the submissions, the Court said the procedure for inquiry is not required to be followed in case of conviction on a criminal charge. However, to safeguard any injustice, it is required to follow a bare minimum procedure of issuing a show cause notice before termination of service or dismissal when an employee is convicted on a criminal charge, the Court added.In this case, the Court found that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before terminating his service.“Issuance of show cause notice for termination of service on grounds of conviction in a criminal trial is reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing. Petitioner was given said opportunity,” it added.Therefore, the Court found no error in the dismissal order. .Advocate Khalid Noor Fakhruddin represented the petitioner.Advocates Supriya Singh, Bhanu Prakash Vishwakarma and Aditi Singh Thakur represented the respondents. [Read Judgment]
