IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4877 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vinay Kumar …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): In nutshell, the grievance of the petitioner, who at present is working as JOA (IT) at Sub Divisional Office(Civil) Dheera Pragpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is with regard to the fact that his services are not being regularized despite completion of requisite period of contract services on account of pendency of criminal case against him in the Competent Court of law. Though, petitioner has been honorably acquitted by the Competent Court of law, but yet representation, having been filed by the petitioner, for regularization from due date, has been not considered as such, he is 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs:- “a) The direction may kindly be passed to the respondent- Department to regularize the services of the present petitioner on the day, he completed his two years contractual service(from the date mentioned in the Annexure P-2); b) The direction may kindly be passed to the respondent- department to grant the petitioner all other consequential benefits, arising after the due date of regularization as mentioned as Annexure P-2; C) The direction may kindly be passed to the respondent department to grant all benefits to the present petitioner as granted to the other similar situated in the department.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that petitioner herein was initially engaged in the e- governance society, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh as Data Entry Operator. Subsequently, Government of Himachal Pradesh issued notification dated 02.01.2019, providing therein for absorption of employees of e-governance society in the establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-1). Vide afore notification, it came to be notified that e-governance employees (Computer/ Data Entry Operator), who fulfill the criteria, as laid down in the Recruitment And Promotion Rules of the Junior Office Assistant(IT) shall be absorbed in the office of Deputy Commissioner. 3. Petitioner, being fully eligible in terms of Recruitment And Promotions Rules, was selected against the post of JOA(IT), which he joined as per order in January, 2019. Initially petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period of one year, but before he 3 could be regularized in terms of regularization policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time, a criminal case came to be registered against him under sections 354-A, 452 and 506 IPC at police Station Lambagaon, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Since criminal case was pending against the petitioner, his contract could not be renewed, but fact remains that he kept on discharging his duties as Data Entry Operator in the Office of Deputy Commissioner Kangra, Himachal Pradesh on contract basis. 4. During pendency of criminal case process was initiated by the department for regularization of Data Entry Operators, but petitioner was not regularized on 31.12.2021 on account of lodging of FIR No. 118 of 2015, dated 23.10.2015 registered under relevant provisions of law, as taken note hereinabove. Meeting of Departmental Promotional Committee was held on 31.12.2021 and 1.4.2022 for regularization of eligible Clerks and JOA (IT) candidates, who had completed two years regular service. Though, name of the petitioner was considered in both the DPCs for regularization, but due to pendency of criminal case, he was not regularized on 31.12.2021 and 1.4.2022. (Copies of proposal of DPC dated 31.12.2021 and 1.4.2022 are Annexure R-III and Annexure R-IV). Now since petitioner stands honorably acquitted w vide judgment dated 13.4.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, 4 Himachal Pradesh, he made representation to the respondents to grant him regularization from due date, but such prayer of him was not accepted for totally unjustifiable reason. 5. If the reply filed by the respondents is read in its entirety, it clearly suggests that the sole ground for not considering the case of the petitioner for regularization, is pendency of criminal case, but once criminal case has been already disposed of vide judgment dated 13.4.2022, there appears to be no impediment, if any, for respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of regularization policy framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh. 6. Learned Deputy Advocate General, having taken of judgment dated 13.4.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, fairly states that prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for regularization after his being acquitted from the criminal case, deserves to be considered. 7. Otherwise also, by now it is well settled that mere pendency of a criminal case may not be a relevant factor for not considering the employee concerned for regularization, rather factor like nature and gravity of accusation are required to be taken into consideration because in case allegations are subsequently found to be false or not proved in the trial, resulting in acquittal, the same 5 would cause hardship to the employee concerned as she/he may get appointed years later for no fault of his/her. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 2110 of 2019, titled Rajinder Kumar versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another, decided on 22.10.2019, wherein it has been held 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 6 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 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 7 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 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 exconvicts 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 8 IPC still remains out of the list. Thus the conviction of the appellant under Section 294 IPC on its own would not involve moral 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.” 8. In Amarjeet Singh versus State of Punjab and another, passed in CWP No. 6851 of 2022, decided on 15.11.2022, respondents’ action of denying appointment to the petitioner only on account of registration of FIR under Sections 406 and 498A was not sustained. 9. In the case at hand, petitioner was appointed as JOA(IT) on contract basis through e-governance society at Kangra in January, 2019 and thereafter, vide order dated 31.12.2021, he was absorbed alongwith other similarly situate persons in the establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Kangra. Since persons, who were absorbed alongwith the petitioner in the year, 2021 stand regularized in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, petitioner herein could not be denied such benefit on account of pendency of criminal case or his character verification. Petitioner’s services were not regularized on account of registration of FIR, as detailed hereinabove, which action 9 of respondents otherwise cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in number of cases, as has been taken note hereinabove. 10. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment passed by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 10650 of 2023, titled Deepa versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 20.03.2025, wherein in similar facts and circumstances, direction came to be issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in that case from due date with all consequential benefits, subject to fulfillment of other codal conditions. 11. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as JOA (IT) from due date with all consequential benefits, subject to fulfillment of other codal conditions. 12. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 14, 2025 (shankar)