Can convicted teacher keep his job? Madhya Pradesh High explains why ‘moral turpitude’ key to firing government staff

Is conviction enough?

• It was held that if the conviction is for any minor offence which does not involve any moral turpitude, a punishment of removal or dismissal from service will certainly be excessive.
• But where the conviction is on the ground of corruption, there can be no two views that imposition of punishment by way of dismissal is just and proper and not excessive.
• The conviction of the teacher is not for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
• In a case of Laxmi Narayan Hayaran vs State of MP and Anr, the court held that in a case of disimissal of employee on the ground of conviction, in exercise of power of judicial review, the court can examine whether there was consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances by the disciplinary authority in imposing the penalty and correct the penalty if it is excessive, aligns with the decisions of the Supreme Court.
• The apex court has also taken a similar view in the case of State Bank of India and Ors vs P Soupramaniane, wherein the Supreme Court has quashed the order of dismissal on the ground that the offence in the said case did not involve ‘moral turpitude’.

Convicted for rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.

• The respondent, assistant teacher, was appointed in November 1988.
• In June 2015, a criminal case was registered against him involving charges under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 147 (punishment for rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), 294 (obscene acts and songs), and 235 (possession of instrument or material for the purpose of using the same for counterfeiting coin) of the IPC.
• Following a trial, the session court convicted Rajput in November 2022 for offences under Sections 148 and 325/149 IPC, sentencing him to simple imprisonment of one to two years, respectively.
• Consequent to this conviction, the state authorities dismissed Rajput from service on March 6, 2023, invoking Rule 19(1) (where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.
• The teacher challenged this dismissal and filed a plea, which was allowed on April 15, 2025.
• The single judge quashed the dismissal, finding the offence did not involve moral turpitude and directed his reinstatement with all consequential benefits and six per cent interest per annum.
• The state filed a present plea against the single judge’s order.