- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:985 WP No. 4240 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4240 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. MALLAPPA BASAPPA SAJJAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, C/O. SOMASHEKAR BASAPPA HALLUR, NO.260, 1ST CROSS, BHUVANESHWAR NAGAR, DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 057. ALSO AT: R/OF, BIDARKUNDI, MUDDEBIHAL TALUK, BIJAPUR DISTRICT-586 212. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRABHUGOUDA B TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, KOLAR, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563 101. 2. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT 563 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.A. SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:985 WP No. 4240 of 2019 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.09.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT PRODUCED WIDE ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the communication dated 20.09.2018 (Annexure-A) by which, the petitioner is communicated that his selection to the post of peon is cancelled. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Prabhugouda B.Tumbigi for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.M.A.Subramani, for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in pursuance to notification dated 05.10.2016 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:985 WP No. 4240 of 2019 (Annexure-B) issued calling application to fill up the post of peon in the 2nd respondent office, the petitioner applied for the post of peon. Petitioner attended the interview on 10.11.2016. The petitioner was selected and was placed in the select list. As the petitioner had claimed reservation under 2-A (Rural) category, his caste certificate was forwarded for verification and under Annexure-D letter dated 02.01.2017 letter was addressed to Superintendent of Police, Vijayapura District, Vijayapura to find out the antecedents of the petitioner and other selected candidates. Police verification report of the petitioner was submitted stating that petitioner had faced trial in C.C.No.605/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act (for short 'K.P.Act') and the petitioner had suffered fine of Rs.300/-. Based on the said communication respondent No.2 cancelled the selection of the petitioner as peon and closed the selection process. Questioning the same, petitioner is before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:985 WP No. 4240 of 2019 4. Learned counsel Sri.Prabhugouda B.Tumgibi, for petitioner would contend that on the ground that the petitioner is convicted for offences under Section 87 of the K.P.Act, and imposed fine of Rs.300/-, the respondents could not have cancelled the selection of the petitioner as peon in the 2nd respondent Office. It is submitted that offence under Section 87 of the K.P.Act, would not involve moral turpitude and as such action of the respondents, is wholly unreasonable and unfair. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "PAWAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER" reported in (1996) 4 SCC 17 to contend that conviction for fine of partly sum cannot be a ground to deny employment. Further he submits that the above decision would also explains the expression moral turpitude. Thus, he prays to allow the petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.M.A.Sumbramani, for respondents would submit that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:985 WP No. 4240 of 2019 since the petitioner is convicted for the offence under Section 87 of the K.P.Act, the respondents rightly cancelled the selection of the petitioner to the post of peon. Learned counsel would further submit that a person who is convicted would not be entitled for employment that too in judicial department. Thus, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Further learned counsel would refer to Rule 10 of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1977 to say that unless the appointing authority is satisfied that the selected candidate is of good character and is in all respect suitable for appointment, he shall not be appointed. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the only point for consideration is:- "as to whether the respondent could cancel the selection of the petitioner to the post of peon for conviction for offence punishable under - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:985 WP No. 4240 of 2019 Section 87 of the K.P.Act, and for suffering fine of Rs.300/-?" 9. My answer to the above point would be in the negative and the action of the respondent is totally unreasonable, unfair and contrary to decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PAWAN KUMAR (supra). 10. The petitioner, in pursuance of his application for the post of Peon was selected as Peon in the second respondent-Court. But, his selection is cancelled on the ground that the petitioner is convicted for the offense punishable under Section 87 of the K.P. Act and he has suffered fine of Rs.300/-. Admittedly, the offense punishable under Section 87 of the K.P. Act is non- cognizable offense (ILR 2020 KAR 630). Moreover, the offense under Section 87 of K.P.Act cannot be categorized as crime involving moral turpitude. The Hon’ble Supreme Court Pawan kumar (supra) as well as in a case reported in (2019)18 SCC 135 in the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v/s - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:985 WP No. 4240 of 2019 P.SOUPRAMANIANE after taking note of the definition of moral turpitude in Black Law Dictionary and other Dictionaries at paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 has held as follows: “9. “Moral Turpitude” as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) is as follows: “Moral Turpitude.- The act of baseness, vileness, or the depravity in the private and social duties which man owes to his fellow man, or to society in general, contrary to accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.” “implies something immoral in itself regardless of it being punishable by law”; “restricted to the gravest offences, consisting of felonies, infamous crimes, and those that are malum in se and disclose a depraved mind.” 10. According to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, “Moral Turpitude” is: “An act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.” - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:985 WP No. 4240 of 2019 11. Burton Legal Thesaurus defines “Moral Turpitude” as: “Bad faith, bad repute, corruption, defilement, delinquency, discredit, dishonour, shame, guilt, knavery, misdoing, perversion, shame, vice, wrong.” 12. x x x x x 13. Ordinarily, the tests that can be applied for judging an offence involving moral turpitude are: (a) Whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the moral conscience or society in general; (b) Whether the motive which led to the act was a base one, and (c) Whether on account of the act having been committed the perpetrators could be considered to be of a depraved character or a person who was to be looked down upon by the society. 14. The other important factors that are to be kept in mind to conclude that an offence involves moral turpitude are : the person who commits the offence; the person against whom it is committed; the manner and circumstances in which it is alleged to have been committed; and the values of the society.” - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:985 WP No. 4240 of 2019 11. The above decision makes it clear that for judging an offense involving moral turpitude, the act leading to conviction shall shock moral conscious of the Society in general or the act having been committed by a person was to be looked down upon by the Society. 12. The offense alleged against the petitioner and conviction is for the offense under Section 87 of the K.P. Act. Section 87 of the K.P. Act reads as follows: “87. Gaming in public streets.—Whoever is found gaming or reasonably suspected to be gaming in any public street, or thoroughfare, or in any place to which the public have or permitted to have access or in any race course shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees, or with both and where such gaming consists of wagering or betting, any such person so found gaming shall, on conviction, be punishable in the manner and to the extent referred to in section 80 and all moneys found on such person shall be forfeited to the Government. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:985 WP No. 4240 of 2019 1[Any] police officer may seize all things reasonably suspected to be instruments of gaming found in such public street, thoroughfare, place or race course or on or about the person of those whom he shall so arrest, and the Magistrate may, on conviction of the offender, order such instruments to be forthwith destroyed. When anything has been found on or about any person and a Court is satisfied that the police officer had reasonable grounds for suspecting that such thing was an instrument of gaming, such circumstance shall, until the contrary is proved, be evidence that such thing was an instrument of gaming and that the person on or about whom the thing was found was present for the purpose of gaming.” 13. In terms of the above gaming in a public street, a thoroughfare or any place to which the public have or are permitted to have occur or in any race course would be an offence. Gaming per se is not punishable. But gaming in public is punishable. 14. The above offense is non-cognizable offense as stated above and it is needless to state that it is bailable and no moral turpitude would involve. The acts of the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:985 WP No. 4240 of 2019 petitioner would not shock moral conscious of the Society and the petitioner cannot be classified as a person with depraved character. Taking note of the offense under Section 87 of the K.P. Act, the offense or conviction under Section 87 of the K.P. Act would not disentitle or deprives the petitioner of his selection for employment as Peon. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in PAWAN KUMAR case (supra) has observed that, provision needs to be made that a punishment of fine up to certain limit, more so, up to Rs.2,000/- or so, on a summary/ordinary conviction shall not be treated as conviction at all for any purpose, and all the more, for entering into any government service or retention in Government service. 16. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. ORDER a) Writ petition stands allowed. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:985 WP No. 4240 of 2019 b) The Communication dated 20.09.2018 bearing No.AB:MT:No:3083/2018 at Annexure-A is quashed and the petitioner would be entitled to the post of Peon in the second respondent-Court. c) The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner as Peon, if he is otherwise eligible. d) Time for compliance, two months from the date of uploading of this order on the official website of High Court of Karnataka. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE GPG/MPK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40