G.M. LODHA, J.— In this writ petition Parmeshwar Swaroop, a civil servant, has prayed that the following relief may be granted to him:- (i) to revote the order of suspension dated 17. 9. 82 retrospectively with effect from 20th March, 1982, (ii) and to pay his full salary and allowances for the entire period from the date of his deemed suspension till the date of the revocation of the order of suspension, after deduction of subsistence allowance already paid to the petitioner. 2. Parmeshwar Swaroop was employed as subject-matter Specialist (Plant protection) Agriculture Officer and posted as such in the office of the District Extension Officer, Rajasthan Canal Project, Suratgarh. A case under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered against him on March 18, 1982 for causing death of none else but his own wife Madhu. He was suspended from service by order dated September 17, 1982 (Annexure-1). He along with his father was prosecuted under Section 302, 302/34, 201, 120 B I.P.C. on the allegation that after the marriage with Madhu Saxena, accused Bhagwan Swaroop and Parmeshwar Swaroop started teasing and harassing Parmeshwar Swaroops wife Madhu for dowry on the ground that proper dowry has not been given. There was some litigation also. On March 18, 1982 the dead body of Madhu was found in the house of the accused. Since only the first page and pages 24 and 25 of the judgment have been filled by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would not be possible to narrate the entire facts, nor the reasons which led to the acquittal. However, the most important feature of this case is that in the operative part of the judgment the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City while acquitting the accused has made serious observations against the accused and held that after the marriage the husband and the father-in law harassed Madhu and created such adverse inhuman circumstances in which she virtually was compelled to die and they are morally responsible for her death. It has been mentioned that Parmeshwar Swarroop filed a petition for judicial separation. Madhu then submitted written apology, but inspite of that Parmeshwar Swaroop never gave any love or affection to her. Madhu was completely disillusioned and she mentally and physically collapsed as she was not given any affection. It has been mentioned that Parmeshwar Swarroop filed a petition for judicial separation. Madhu then submitted written apology, but inspite of that Parmeshwar Swaroop never gave any love or affection to her. Madhu was completely disillusioned and she mentally and physically collapsed as she was not given any affection. The cruelty was so acute that the father-in-law did not allow her to come before him on the ground that he would not like to see her face. The learned Sessions Judge was so much overs helmed with the pitiable condition of the girl Madhu that he observed that the cruel treatment of the husband was of such a heinous nature that she was not treated even like a cattel and inspite of serious agony of the wife, the husband continued to be indifferent and cruel to her. Slowly and slowly Madhu reduced herself to a skeleton and ultimately died, but the husband and father-in-law were so cruel that even her dead body was allowed to remain unattended and nobody bothered about it. It was after many days that the worn, torn, and highly decomposed dead body was found, which exhibits the climax of cruelty, inhumanity, barbarity of the husband and in-laws. The learned Sessions Judge has mentioned that the tell tale of this tragedy is heart rendering and society shocking, nerve breaking. 3. I have extracted the substance of the observations which have been made by the Sessions Judge at the end of the judgment, in order to show that though technically the accused has been acquitted, but the learned Sessions Judge could not resist the deduction or conclusion which he has drawn regarding this tragedy and responsibility of the husband and in-laws in it. 4. Learned counsel submits that since acquittal has been made now, according to the law, re-instatement should be done automatically and this Court should, therefore, issue a mandamus directing the respondents to re-instate him and pay him all back wages and salary. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court is not concerned with the moral aspect of the case, as only legal rights are decided as it is a Law Court and not a Moral Court. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that he has moved an application before this Court for expunging the remarks and that application has been admitted and the same is pending. 7. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that he has moved an application before this Court for expunging the remarks and that application has been admitted and the same is pending. 7. In a series of decisions it has been laid down that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary and equitable. 8. There are several schools of jurisprudence. Analytical School of Law, where no sociological considerations came into being. The historical concept of law, which consider that law is not made but originates as historical growth on Sadachara, usage and customs. Yet another school says that the law is the result of a social effort to meet the unsatisfied legitimate but human desires and ambitions. The law thus becomes an instrument of social and economic change. The ethical schools of law believes that law should be based on morality, consideration of right and wrong, moral or immoral. 9. in Gagan Raj Singh Nagori vs. Union of India(l) a similar submission was made by Mr. Singhvi, who appeared for Railway employee, against whom the charge was of rape against an adult woman in retiring room, but the charge was not sustained and he was acquitted. However, while acquitting the accused in that case, similar observations were made by the Court. Nagori was then removed from service without any enquiry or charge sheet and he approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The submission made was that without any enquiry and without any evidence and procedure of departmental enquiry, no removal can be ordered, more so, when acquittal has been done by the Criminal Court. 10. This Court considered the submissions of Mr. Singhvi in that case and observed as under:- "Are we to convert temples of justice into high per technical legal gymnastic clubs for display of legal gimmicks to protect immoral traffic and immoral acts ? Are we to hold that law is blind and bereft and devoid of morality ? Are wo to provide legal umbrella and reinstate an officer who being mad with agony and lust for sex, converts Railway waiting room into brothel and instead of checking Railway tickets, exploits a lonely female sex in the room by satisfying his immoral animal instinct? These are a few serious legal cum sociological questions arising from submissions of Mr. Are wo to provide legal umbrella and reinstate an officer who being mad with agony and lust for sex, converts Railway waiting room into brothel and instead of checking Railway tickets, exploits a lonely female sex in the room by satisfying his immoral animal instinct? These are a few serious legal cum sociological questions arising from submissions of Mr. Singhvi, that since I am sitting as a judge in a Court of law, I should not consider the morality of the case and if I do so I would convert "Law Court" into "Moral Court", which I cannot do. The answer is very simple. Law cannot be devoid of morality. Law is made and enforced to ensure morality. Morality is inseparable from law and when even the contracts against public policy and morality are void, legislatures cannot make laws against public morality. Courts of law are never immoral Courts and would never interpret law against morality. Courts of law are proverbially "temples of justice" and neither any temple nor justice can exist, against morality, and without morality. Morality and law, though not synonymous are complimentary and supplementary, one based on the other and one enhancing and protecting the other. In the above broader sense, the Courts cannot become blind to morality, & should refuse to interpret law so as to put premium on immorality. A Court should refuse to administer law so as to lead to immoral, unethical consequences & always interpret law for enhancing, protecting morality. "Law and Morality has been dealt with by RWM D1AS in his treatise on jurisprudence published by Butter worths at page 342: "Law and Morality:—The question to be decided is whether certain liberties should be allowed at all i.e. the extent to which prohibitory laws should be used to uphold moral positions. A preliminary point to clarify is the significance of the word should. No one denies that many laws do reflect moral considerations, while many are morally meitral. The question is not whether they do or do not, but whether they should uphold morals, i.e., the justification for using laws in this way. A preliminary point to clarify is the significance of the word should. No one denies that many laws do reflect moral considerations, while many are morally meitral. The question is not whether they do or do not, but whether they should uphold morals, i.e., the justification for using laws in this way. Justification is said to be needed because (i) the imposition and enforcement of legal duties limit liberty of action; and interference with liberty is said to need justification since liberty is ancient; it is despotism that is new," (ii) a good deal of legal reinforcement of morals involved interference with sexual freedom: and the psychological problems that can arise through the inhibition of such deep seated drives demand that sufficient reasons be given, and (iii) the freezing of moral attitudes by laws may hinder the processes of moral change; so hindrance needs justification. Morality has hitherto been largely lock up with religion, and it is said that once a State leaves religion to private judgment it should do likewise with morality. There is however, a distinction. Moral ideas of right and wrong dictate behaviours, but religion is a matter of belief and only influences behaviour through the moral attitudes which it fosters. Many ideas about every day morals are not peculiar to any particular religion, or any religion at all. Since the State is very much concerned with the behaviour of its citizens, it may rightly continue to concern itself with moral attitudes while renouncing interest in beliefs, except when these are thought to be cordioval to undesirable behaviour e.g., Scientology" At page 144. "The interpretation of "moral position" falls to be considered next. This is, of course, central to the problem of how far laws should uphold morality. Two persons may debate whether the rule of law should allow or forbid the doing of something which both acknowledge to be immoral. What of the man who asks, on what basis is it judged immoral ? Answers based on religion cannot appeal to non-believers and so fall outside the scope of this chapter. A secular answer given by Professor Hart is that "some shared morality is essential to the existence of any society." "Essential" has two aspects. On the one hand, it means that some shared morality is an ingredient of any and every community, i.e,. a part of every community is its morality. A secular answer given by Professor Hart is that "some shared morality is essential to the existence of any society." "Essential" has two aspects. On the one hand, it means that some shared morality is an ingredient of any and every community, i.e,. a part of every community is its morality. On the other hand, it may also connote certain additional moral ideas which have become part of the fabric of a particular society. This distinction provides the respective bases for what might be termed the "institutional" and the "utilitarian" interpretations of "Moral position." 11. In Gaganraj Singhs case (Supra) I have further observed that though the submission of Mr. Singhvi regarding applicability of rule 14, was plausible, but interference under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be made in such a case, because the jurisdiction is equitable and extraordinary. 12. In para 25 I have observed that the reprehensible conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from claiming any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Honble the Chief Justice late Gajendra Gadkar in his speech on Law, Lawyers & Judges in an inaugural address of centenary celebrations of the Advocates Association of Western India, at Bombay on October 12, 1963 observed :— "Every day before the proceedings commence when Judges and Lawyers blow before that seat of Justice, it is necessary that each one of us should remember that we discharge in the Court room it the solemn task of search of truth. Ethical consideration of the highest order cannot be eliminated from our courts, for in a sense, that work is the work of worship in the temples of justice." 14. It is true that the accused have been acquitted. Since the reasons for acquittal have not been given in the 3 pages of copy out of 25 pages of judgment supplied to this Court, it would not be possible for this Court to ascertain and analyse whether the acquittal was based on any technical reasons by giving benefit of doubt, for want of evidence or otherwise. Since the reasons for acquittal have not been given in the 3 pages of copy out of 25 pages of judgment supplied to this Court, it would not be possible for this Court to ascertain and analyse whether the acquittal was based on any technical reasons by giving benefit of doubt, for want of evidence or otherwise. However, the basic facts revealed by the portion of the judgment produced before this Court leaves much to be desired and the tell tale of sorrow and suffering of Madhu, wife of the petitioner, is undoubtedly heart rendering, nerve breaking, society rocking and of such a pathetic and tragic nature that while exercising equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution it becomes relevant to consider whether the petitioner deserves any equitable relief and that too by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since a petition for quashing of these observations is said to be pending in this Court, I would not like to make any comments lest it may prejudice the case of the petitioner. However, the least it can be said is that so long these observations remain on the judicial record, the petitioner cannot invoke the equitable jurisdiction of this Court. By his own heinous conduct, he has disentitled himself from getting a writ issued against the respondents. 15. I would refrain and restrain myself with great difficulty in not making any further observations in view of the pendency of the petition of the petitioner, but I am convinced that the present one is a case of more serious and heinous nature than that of Gaganraj Singhs case (Supra) and all the reasons given in that judgment squarely apply in the present case with much more vigour and force. 16. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that in case the respondent wants to pass any order on departmental level in respect of the service of the petitioner, it is not intended that this judgment should come as a bar against the petitioner.