1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND R.P.No.254/2025 IN W.P.No.32786/2024 (S-KSAT) C/W W.P.No.31719/2024 (S-KSAT) R.P.No.254/2025 IN W.P.No.32786/2024 BETWEEN: SRI.G. NANJEGOWDA S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, SDA AT THE OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT NO.19, MAIN ROAD, 16TH CROSS, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA, BANGALORE-560098 (UNDER HE ORDER OF DISMISSAL) R/AT NO.54, SAIPRIYA LAYOUT, JANAPRIYA DIVISION, KADABAGERE BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-562130. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI BABU RAO M., ADV.) 2 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY) M S BUILDING DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B RAVINDRANATH, AGA) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION. 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2025 PASSED IN WP NO.32786/24 PASSED BY THIS COURT AND TO RESTORE THE WRIT PETITION ON THE FILE AND TO DISPOSE THE WRIT PETITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. W.P.NO.31719/2024 BETWEEN: SRI G GIRISH S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, POLICE CONSTABLE (UNDER ORDERS OF DISMISSAL) RESIDING AT KOTTAGARAHALLI 3 MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT- 562120. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATRI, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KARNATAKA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE WEST DIVISION, R T NAGAR BANGALORE - 560032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B RAVINDRANATH, AGA) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25/10/2024 IN A.NO.858/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ALLOW THE A.NO.858/2024 AND ETC. 4 THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 04.09.2025 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 25.10.2024 in Application No.858/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”) wherein the petitioner’s challenge to the endorsement dated 15.12.2023 (Annexure-A12) rejecting his request for reinstatement and to continue him in service; the endorsement dated 20.06.2023 (Annexure-A10) rejecting the petitioner’s request for reinstatement and continuation of his service and also to quash the O.M. dated 02.02.2013, the penalty order of dismissal passed under Rule 14(1) of Karnataka State Police 5 (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965 read with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, dispensing enquiry. 2. The relevant facts in W.P.No.31719/2024 are that, the petitioner while working as Police Constable in Subramanya Nagara Police Station, a complaint came to be filed in Magadi Police Station against the petitioner and others under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 324, 326, 427 and 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC. After trial, the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi in C.C.No.279/2001, by judgment dated 13.01.2011 convicted the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, imposing punishment of simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years with fine. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 13.01.2011, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.10/2011 before the Additional 6 District and Sessions Judge, which came to be dismissed on 18.04.2016. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.626/2016 before this Court. 3. Respondent No.3 herein passed an order on 28.02.2011 under Rule 14(1) of the CCA Rules, dismissing the petitioner on account of conviction in the criminal case without conducting any departmental enquiry. The petitioner approached the Tribunal in Application No.1172/2011, which came to be allowed on 02.02.2012 with a direction to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith. Aggrieved thereby, the State Authorities approached this Court in W.P.No.28303/2012, which came to be allowed by this Court on 03.09.2012, setting aside the order of the Tribunal. However, the order of dismissal passed by the Commissioner was set aside, reserving liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to 7 consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made therein. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 02.02.2013 (Annexure-A6) dismissing the petitioner from service invoking Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 14(1) of KSP (DP) Rules. 4. Criminal Appeal No.10/2011 filed against the order dated 13.01.2011 in C.C.No.279/2001 was dismissed vide order dated 18.04.2016. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.626/2016 against the conviction, which was partly allowed by this Court by order dated 13.04.2023, modifying the sentence to that of fine for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 427 and 506 of IPC. Thereafter the petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.04.2023, bringing to the notice of the respondent-authorities the modification 8 of sentence of imprisonment to that of fine, with a request to reinstate and continue him in service. The petitioner was issued with endorsements dated 20.06.2023 and 15.12.2023 which were the subject matter of Application No.858/2024. The Tribunal, under impugned order rejected the petitioner’s application and his prayer for reinstatement, holding that conviction of the petitioner was never modified and it remains as it is and what is modified is only the penalty. When the conviction order is still operating against the petitioner, the question of reinstatement would not arise. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 5. In R.P.No.254/2025, the petitioner is before this Court under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC praying to review the order dated 21.04.2025 in W.P.No.32786/2024, whereunder the petitioner’s 9 challenge to the order dated 25.10.2024 in Application No.859/2024 passed by the Tribunal, refusing to set aside the order of dismissal from service, is rejected. 6. The petitioner herein was also involved in the same offence as alleged against the petitioner in the above stated writ petition and the petitioner was convicted in C.C.No.279/2001 by order dated 13.01.2011 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Magadi, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 324, 427 and 506 read with 34 of IPC imposing punishment of simple imprisonment for a period of two years. Based on the said conviction, the petitioner was dismissed form service on 19.08.2017. The petitioner preferred appeal before the District and Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.10/2011 challenging conviction, which came to be dismissed on 18.04.2016. Thereafter, the review petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition 10 No.626/2016, and this Court by judgment dated 13.04.2023, modified the sentence to that of fine while confirming the conviction. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have submitted a representation requesting reinstatement into service. However, the said request was dismissed under endorsement dated 18.11.2023, which was the subject matter before the Tribunal in Application No.859/2024, which was dismissed. Against which, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.32786/2024 which was also dismissed by this Court. Against the said order, the present review petition is filed. 7. Heard learned counsel Sri.Raghavendra G. Gayathri for petitioner in W.P.No.31719/2024 and Sri.M.Babu Rao, learned counsel for review petitioner in Review Petition No.254/2025 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath for respondents. Perused the entire petition papers. 11 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were dismissed only on the ground that both the petitioners were convicted in C.C.No.279/2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 324, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, without examining as to whether the same is conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. It is submitted that this Court, in the Criminal Revision Petition, based on the material on record, came to the conclusion that PW1 to PW4 had suffered only simple injuries and therefore modified the sentence from imprisonment to that of fine. Learned counsels, taking us through the judgment passed by this Court in the Criminal Revision Petition, would submit that the question involved here is whether the conviction of the petitioners under Section 324 of IPC could be said to 12 be an offence involving moral turpitude in the facts of the present case. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to the judgment of this Court in the Criminal Revision Petition, would submit that, on account of modifying the sentence to that of fine, the penalty would be lesser when compared to imprisonment. Mere imposition of a fine for an offence would not be serious or would not amount to offence involving the moral turpitude. Learned counsels would also submit that though Rule 14 of CCA Rules would empower the State Authorities to dismiss a Government servant who has suffered conviction, but such dismissal on conviction could be only for an offence which involves moral turpitude. 10. Learned counsel Sri.Raghavendra G Gayathri placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex 13 Court in STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v/s P.SOUPRAMANIANE reported in (2019)18 SCC 135 to contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down tests that could be applied for judging an offence whether it involves moral turpitude or not. By applying the said test, it is submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioners would not constitute an offence of moral turpitude. It is further submitted that in the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court taking note of the fact that the injuries caused to the victims were simple in nature and taking note of overall consideration of the case, held that the crime committed in the said case does not involve moral turpitude. In the same lines, learned counsels would pray for allowing the present petition and to reinstate the petitioners into service. 11. Learned AAG would submit that since the conviction is not set aside and only sentence is 14 reduced, the petitioners would not be entitled for reinstatement. Further, learned AAG would submit that one of the offences proved is under Section 324 of IPC i.e., voluntarily causing hurt by using dangerous weapons or means. It is submitted that conviction for offence under Section 324 IPC is not set aside. As such, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting their applications as well as respondents are justified in dismissing petitioners on their conviction. Thus, it is prayed to dismiss both the writ petitions. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the entire petition papers, the following points would arise for our consideration: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the offences alleged against the petitioners would involve moral turpitude? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is 15 justified in rejecting the applications of the petitioners? 13. Answer to both the points would be in the negative, for the following reasons: The petitioner in W.P.No.31791/2024 as well as the review petitioner in R.P.No.254/2024 were working as a Police Constable and as a Second Division Assistant respectively. While working as such, on a complaint by one Sri.Narayan @ Thimmegowda before the Magadi Police Station, a crime was registered against the petitioners and others under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 324, 326, 427 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. Registration of the said case is not with regard to discharge of their duties as government servants. The crime was converted into C.C.No.279/2001 and trial was conducted. After trial, the petitioners were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 16 143, 147, 148, 326, 324, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The appeal filed by the petitioners in Crl.A.No.10/2011 was dismissed by judgment dated 18.04.2016. However, Crl.R.P.No.626/2016 filed before this Court was partly allowed and the conviction passed against the petitioners under Section 326 of IPC was set aside, while confirming their conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. However, the sentence of imprisonment was modified and reduced to payment of fine. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in STATE BANK OF INDIA (supra) while considering the case of dismissal of a Bank employee for conviction under Section 324 of IPC, at paragraphs 12 to 16 has observed as follows: 17 12. There is no doubt that there is an obligation on the management of the Bank to discontinue the services of an employee who has been convicted by a criminal court for an offence involving moral turpitude. [Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Punjab National Bank, (2010) 8 SCC 573 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 674] Though every offence is a crime against the society, discontinuance from service according to the Banking Regulation Act can be only for committing an offence involving moral turpitude. Acts which disclose depravity and wickedness of character can be categorised as offences involving moral turpitude. Whether an offence involves moral turpitude or not depends upon the facts [Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola, (1997) 4 SCC 1 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 897] and the circumstances [Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1996) 4 SCC 17, para 12 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 583] of the case. 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; 18 (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. [Mangali v. Chhakki Lal, 1962 SCC OnLine All 215 : AIR 1963 All 527] 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. [Jorabhai Hirabhai Rabari v. Distt. Development Officer, 1995 SCC OnLine Guj 117 : AIR 1996 Guj 3] 15. According to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), a crime data collection system used in the United States of America, each offence belongs to one of the three categories which are : crimes against persons, crimes against property, and crimes against society. Crimes against persons include murder, rape, and 19 assault where the victims are always individuals. The object of crimes against property, for example, robbery and burglary is to obtain money, property, or some other benefits. Crimes against society, for example, gambling, prostitution, and drug violations, represent society's prohibition against engaging in certain types of activities. Conviction of any alien of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for deportation under the Immigration Law in the United States of America. To qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude for such purpose, it requires both reprehensible conduct and scienter, whether with specific intent, deliberateness, wilfulness or recklessness. [Cristoval Silva- Trevina, In re, 24 I&N Dec 687 (AG 2008)] 16. There can be no manner of doubt about certain offences which can straightaway be termed as involving moral turpitude e.g. offences under the Prevention of Corruption of Act, the NDPS Act, etc. The question that arises for our consideration in this case is whether an offence involving bodily injury can be categorised as a crime involving moral turpitude. In this case, we are concerned with an assault. It is very difficult to state that every assault is not an offence 20 involving moral turpitude. A simple assault is different from an aggravated assault. All cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorised as crimes involving moral turpitude. On the other hand, the use of a dangerous weapon which can cause the death of the victim may result in an offence involving moral turpitude. In the instant case, there was no motive for the respondent to cause the death of the victims. The criminal courts below found that the injuries caused to the victims were simple in nature. On an overall consideration of the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the crime committed by the respondent does not involve moral turpitude. As the respondent is not guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude, he is not liable to be discharged from service. 15. In the above said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down tests that can be applied for judging whether an offence involves moral turpitude or not. While judging an offence as to whether it involves moral turpitude, the Court shall have to examine whether the act leading to conviction was 21 such as to shock the moral conscience or Society in general; whether the motive which led to the Act was a base one and whether the character of the perpetrators was such that he would be looked down upon by the Society. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above stated SBI case has observed that a simple assault is different from an aggravated assault. All cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorized as crimes involving moral turpitude. 16. Keeping in mind the above principle, if the act of the petitioners is examined in the light of the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.626/2016 and other connected revision petitions dated 13.04.2016, it is seen that the accused persons have been acquitted of the charges against them under Section 326 of IPC. Moreover, paragraph 32 of the judgment in the above stated Criminal Revision Petition clearly records that P.W.1 and P.W.4 had suffered only simple 22 injuries and that the courts below were justified in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 427 and 506 of IPC. Section 324 of IPC under which the conviction was made requires causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. There is no evidence on record before the criminal court also to show as to dangerous weapons used by the accused persons or petitioners with an intention to cause grievous hurt or otherwise. In terms of the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, a simple assault is different from an aggravated assault and all cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorized as crimes involving moral turpitude. 17. The Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the applications by concluding that the conviction of the petitioners was not set aside and only the sentence was modified to that of fine, without examining as to whether the conviction of the petitioner was for 23 offence involving moral turpitude or alleged offences would amount to an offence involving moral turpitude. Further, the Tribunal is not justified in placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.C.SAREEN V/S CBI, Chandigarh reported in AIR 2001 SC 3320. The said SAREEN case involved conviction of a government servant for corruption charges. In the instant case, the conviction is not for an offence committed during the course of employment, but outside the scope of service. 18. This Court while dismissing W.P.No.32786/2024 held that the petitioners were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 324, 427 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC without examining as to whether those offences would amount to offences involving moral turpitude. 24 19. Non-consideration of the said ground in the facts of the present case would amount to an error apparent on the face of record in terms of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC which would enable this Court to review the order. Moreover, the petitioner in W.P.No.31791/2024 and petitioner in Review Petition are similarly placed and further both of them are convicted and their sentence is reduced in the same Criminal Revision Petition. In that light of the matter, review petitioner would be entitled for the same relief which the Petitioner in W.P.No.31791/2024 would be entitled to. 20. For the reasons recorded above, the following order: (i) W.P.No.31719/2024 is allowed. (ii) The order dated 25.10.2024 in Application No.858/2024 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Consequently, the impugned endorsement bearing No. Page No.24 is corrected and replaced vide Court order dated 12.01.2026. 25 Appeal(4)19/2023-24 dated 15.12.2023 and endorsement bearing No.16/¹§âA¢-3/¸ÀA.¥À.«/2011 dated 20.06.2023 and bearing reference No.16/¹§âA¢-3/¸ÀA.¥À.«/2011 dated 02.02.2013 are quashed, with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Police Constable, with continuity of service for all purposes, except backwages. (iv) R.P.No.254/2024 is allowed. (v) The order dated 21.04.2025 in W.P.No.32786/2024 is reviewed. Consequently, W.P.No.32786/2024 is allowed. The order dated 25.10.2024 in Application No.859/2024 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Endorsement bearing No.¹5(6)¸ÉÃ.¥ÀÄ.ªÀÄ£À«/02/2023-24 dated 18.11.2023 and endorsement bearing No.¹5(6)¸ÉÃ.¥ÀÄ.ªÀÄ£À«/02/2023-24 dated 14.06.2023 and order of dismissal bearing No.¹5(6) zÀÆgÀÄ 10/2013-14 dated 19.08.2017 are quashed, with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the Page No.25 is corrected and replaced vide Court order dated 12.01.2026. 26 petitioner into service as Second Division Assistant, with continuity of service for all purposes, except backwages. Time for compliance: three months from the date of uploading the order on the website of the High Court of Karnataka. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K.V.ARAVIND) JUDGE MPK/NC CT: bms