2025:HHC:6881 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10650 of 2023 Decided on: 20th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deepa …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma and Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner’s services as Staff Nurse have not been regularized though services of her counterparts stand regularized, hence, she has instituted this writ petition. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner points out that vide office order dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure P-5), services of all similarly situated Staff Nurses were regularized. The services of the petitioner were not regularized even though she was fully eligible and had 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:6881 requisite number of years of service to her credit for the purpose of regularization. 3. The only defence taken by the respondents in the reply is that an FIR No.298/2020, dated 08.08.2020, had been registered against the petitioner under Sections 498A, 323, 355, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi. In view of pendency of the FIR, the Screening Committee did not find the petitioner eligible and accordingly her name was not recommended for regularization of her contractual services. 4. The reasons assigned by the respondents for not regularizing the services of the petitioner are wholly untenable. In Rajinder Kumar Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another2, it was held that pendency of a criminal case and registration of FIR though is to be taken into account while considering a candidate for appointment and even at the time of training, as per the Rules, but then even the gravity and nature of the offence has to be considered and, therefore, mere registration of criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for the appointing authority to deny appointment or for that matter 2 CWP No.2110 of 2019, decided on 22.10.2019 3 2025:HHC:6881 withhold regularisation. In the aforesaid case, the benefit of regularization of services was denied to the petitioner solely on the basis of registration of a criminal case under Sections 341, 323 and 34 IPC. Relevant portion from the decision is as under:- “5. Pre-condition for regularization, as per the Government instructions is that an employee, who completes three years of continuous service on contract basis, is entitled for regularization. For the purpose of regularization what has to be looked into is; firstly whether he is a fit person for regularization; secondly, whether he has completed three years of continuous service which is mandatory for regularization; and thirdly, whether his character and conduct is good in order to hold the post in Government/Corporation. When these are the facts and requirement for the purpose of regularization then merely on the ground of registration of a criminal case, a person cannot be deprived of his right of regularization. Since there are many offences which are stated in the IPC but, the Head of Office or the Appointing Authority has to look into the nature of criminal case involved. From the FIR produced, the offences against the petitioner are under Sections 341, 323 and 34 IPC. These offences are common and trivial in nature in respect of a driver, who has to negotiate his vehicle on public road and it is normal that whenever a person who has to negotiate a vehicle on a public road, touches the Government vehicle. This itself may not be sufficient to register a criminal case. Merely registration of a case itself should not be a ground to deprive the petitioner for regularization. The Head of Office is always presumed that he should protect his employees where cases are filed against its employees. The pendency of a criminal case and registration of FIR is to be taken into account but it depends upon the gravity and nature of the offence. Merely registration of a criminal case itself is not a ground and it shows that the Appointing Authority or the Head of Office has not applied its mind in the present case. Getting an employment/regularization though is not a fundamental right but consideration for regularization is a 4 2025:HHC:6881 fundamental right for the purpose of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. When such is a fundamental right for consideration then while dealing with such rights, the respondents should take all care and caution. The respondents in the present case are dealing with the right to life of an employee which ultimately affects his dependents as well. When such interest is involved, which includes the employee as well as his family members, dealing always should be with more care and caution and not in a mechanical and negligent manner. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs P. Soupramaniane, referred supra in para-7 held as to what is the meaning of moral turpitude. It is important and beneficial for Head of the Department to take note of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-7, which reads as under: “7. Moral Turpitude’ as defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.) is as follows: “The Act of baseness, vileness, or the depravity in the private and social duties which man owes to his follow 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.” 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.” Burton Legal Thesaurus defines ‘Moral Turpitude’ as: “Bad faith, bad repute, corruption, defilement, delinquency, discredit, dishonor, shame, guilt, knavery, misdoing, perversion, shame, ice, wrong.” 7. In State of Haryana vs. Ved Kaur, referred sura the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed in para-8, which reads as under: “8. The instructions dated 26.03.1975 which were relied upon in the present case, had been considered by this Court in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another and paragraph 12 of the decision is 5 2025:HHC:6881 relevant for present purposes. The said paragraph was as under: “12. “Moral turpitude” is an expression which is used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity. The Government of Haryana while considering the question of rehabilitation of ex-convicts took a policy decision on 2-2-1973 (Annexure E in the Paper-book), accepting the recommendations of the Government of India, that ex- convicts who were convicted for offences involving moral turpitude should not however be taken in government service. A list of offences which were considered involving moral turpitude was prepared for information and guidance in that connection. Significantly Section 294 IPC is not found enlisted in the list of offences constituting moral turpitude. Later, on further consideration, the Government of Haryana on 17/26-3-1975 explained the policy decision of 2-2-1973 and decided to modify the earlier decision by streamlining determination of moral turpitude as follows: “… The following terms should ordinarily be applied in judging whether a certain offence involves moral turpitude or not; (1) whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the moral conscience of society in general. (2) whether the motive which led to the act was a base one. (3) whether on account of the act having been committed the perpetrator could be considered to be of a depraved character or a person who was to be looked down upon by the society. Decision in each case will, however, depend on the circumstances of the case and the competent authority has to exercise its discretion while taking a decision in accordance with the abovementioned principles. A list of offences which involve moral turpitude is enclosed for your information and guidance. This list, however, cannot be said to be exhaustive and there might be offences which are not included in it but which in certain situations and circumstances may involve moral turpitude.” Section 294 IPC still remains out of the list. Thus the conviction of the appellant under Section 294 IPC on its own would not involve moral 6 2025:HHC:6881 turpitude depriving him of the opportunity to serve the State unless the facts and circumstances, which led to the conviction, met the requirements of the policy decision above-quoted.” 8. In the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the material placed before us, we are of the opinion that a criminal cases when comes in the way of regularization in respect of an employee, it has to be carefully scrutinized by the Head of Office or Appointing Authority, unless it is to be held that it is a case of a serious nature and colourable exercise of powers.” The above position was reiterated in Sanjay Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3. The Court held that respondents could not have straightway kept in abeyance the appointment of the petitioner (therein) without considering the relevant factors like the nature and gravity of accusation because in case these allegations (Under Sections 297, 34 and 323 IPC) are subsequently found to be false or not proved in the trial, resulting in acquittal, the same would cause hardship to the petitioner as the petitioner may get appointed years later for no fault of his. In Amarjeet Singh Versus State of Punjab and another4, respondents’ action of denying appointment 3 CWP No.6851 of 2022, decided on 15.11.2022 4 CWP No.26398 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh on 13.02.2020 7 2025:HHC:6881 to the petitioner only on account of registration of FIR under Sections 406 and 498A was not sustained. In the instant case, petitioner was selected as Staff Nurse on contract basis in the year 2019 against Scheduled Caste Category post. Her case alongwith another similarly situated employee was considered for regularization of their contractual services. Petitioner’s services were not regularized only on account of registration of FIR No.298/2020, dated 08.08.2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 355, 504, 506 and 34 IPC at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi. Applying the ratio of law discussed above, respondents’ action has to be held as unjustifiable. During the course of hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed on record the decision rendered in Gaurav Chaudhary & anr. Versus State of H.P. & anr.5, in terms of which, the FIR that was registered against the petitioner was quashed. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner has made out a case in her favour. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as Staff Nurse from the due 5 Cr.MMO No.501 of 2021, decided on 8.1.2025 8 2025:HHC:6881 date with all consequential benefits, subject to fulfilment of other codal conditions. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 20, 2025 Judge Mukesh