JUDGMENT 1. THESE three Rules are taken up for analogous hearing and disposal since they involve practically common questions of law and fact. 2. THE petitioners in all the three Rules are Constables of Police governed by the Police Regulations, Bengal. In two of the cases, the petitioners were dismissed from service for overstaying leave and in one case for being absent without leave. 3. IN C. R. No. 2969 the petitioner was charge sheeted for overstaying earned leave for 30 days and dismissed following a disciplinary proceeding. 4. IN C. R. No. 2970 the petitioner a temporary Constable, went on casual leave for 5 days but overstayed for about 26 months. He was discharged from service without drawing up any disciplinary proceeding in accordance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 34 of the West Bengal Service Rules (Part I. The petitioner in C R. No. 2971 was charge sheeted for being absent without leave for different periods on four different occasions. He was dismissed following a disciplinary proceeding. Appeals etc. preferred by him against the said order of dismissal proved to be abortive 5. AS per the records the respondents in all the three cases are represented by Mr. Bhaktipada Ghosh, learned Advocate. 6. AS it appears he filed an affidavit-in-opposition only in C. R. No. 2970 but did not take any steps so far the other two Rules are concerned and also remained absent when the Rules were called on for hearing and heard exparte for two consecutive dates. Mr. Nishith Adhikary, the learned Advocate representing the petitioners in all the three Rules, did not challenge the facts leading to the discharge or dismissal of the petitioners. The validity or otherwise of the disciplinary proceedings was also not challenged. Similarly, it was also not his case that disciplinary proceedings should have been drawn up in C. R. No. 2970 before discharging the petitioner. He simply challenged the punishments awarded to the petitioners on the ground that before discharging or dismissing the petitioners from service, Regulations 856 and 857 of the police Regulations Bengal, 1943 were not at all taken into consideration. 7. FOR proper appreciation of the contention raised by Mr. Adhikary in this regard, the relevant portion of Regulation 856 is quoted hereunder: "856officers shall avoid undue harshness in awarding punishments and shall discriminate carefully between offences connoting moral turpitude and minor offences. 7. FOR proper appreciation of the contention raised by Mr. Adhikary in this regard, the relevant portion of Regulation 856 is quoted hereunder: "856officers shall avoid undue harshness in awarding punishments and shall discriminate carefully between offences connoting moral turpitude and minor offences. Every effort shall be made to maintain discipline and to correct the minor faults of police officers by instructions and by warning without resorting to more severe punishments. " in awarding punishment, the general character of the offender and the nature of his past service shall be taken into consideration. . . . . . . . . . " 8. AS was rightly contended by Mr. Adhikary that the above Regulation classifies offences into two distinct types, namely, (1) offences connoting moral turpitude and (2) minor offences. So far minor faults are concerned, the Regulation provides that every effort shall be made to correct the minor faults of police officers by instructions and by warnings without resorting to more severe punishments. 9. AS regards to punishments, Regulation 857 provides as follows : "punishments are divided into major and minor. Major punishments include dismissal, removal from service, reduction, deprivation of approved service increment, removal from any office of distinction or special emolument and award of black marks. Minor punishments include censures (reprimands for misconduct), extra drill, extra fatigue duty and confinement to quarters with or without punishment drill, extra guard, fatigue or other duty" 10. GUIDELINES for awarding punishments have been laid down in paragraph 2 of Regulation 856 and it is as hereunder : "in awarding punishment, the general character of the offender and the nature of his past service shall be taken into consideration. No major punishment shall be awarded to a police officer, until proceedings, as prescribed hereinafter, have been drawn up against him. " It will, therefore, appear that before awarding punishment to a police officer for an offence, it shall have to be decided first whether it is an offence connoting moral turpitude' or a 'minor offence' Now, though the term 'major offence' has not been used in Regulation 856 as distinct from 'minor offence, it is clear that an offence 'connoting moral turpitude' has been treated as a major offence. 11. THE question which naturally arise in this connection is as to what exactly is the nature of an offence connoting moral turpitude. 11. THE question which naturally arise in this connection is as to what exactly is the nature of an offence connoting moral turpitude. Unfortunately it has not been defined either in the Police Regulations, Bengal or in the police Regulations, Calcutta. The result, obviously, has not been happy, since it has been left to the absolute discretion of the disciplinary authorities to decide according to their own subjective satisfaction what an offence connoting moral turpitude should be. Emphasis in this connection has more often been laid to the fact that a police officer is a member of disciplined force and some times any act of indiscipline of a police officer has been equated with an offence involving moral turpitude. While doing so, it has very often been lost sight of that the Police Regulations have also referred to a class of offences as minor offence' as distinguished from 'offence connoting moral turpitude'. 12. FROM the aforesaid classification it will at once be clear that any act of indiscipline of a police officer, whatever be its nature, will not necessarily amount to an offence involving moral turpitude. Moreover indiscipline should not be confused with morality. As a matter of fact, offences involving moral turpitude are totally a different class of offences and as such, should very carefully be distinguished from mere acts of indiscipline. It may be recalled here once again that Regulation 856 of the police Regulations, Bengal has very carefully used the term "offences connoting moral turpitude" instead of using term 'major offences' as distinguished from minor offences' though offences involving moral turpitude have been. treated as major offences for the purpose of awarding punishment. 13. IT need not, accordingly, be emphasized that before awarding major punishments including dismissal, removal from service etc as provided by regulation 857, the disciplinary authority should initially be satisfied objectively on the facts and circumstances of each case that the offence is one connoting moral turpitude and if it is not so, the offence will naturally come under the category of 'minor offences' for which only 'minor punishments' can be awarded unless the delinquent officer is let off "by instructions and by warnings without resorting to more severe punishments" in accordance with paragraph 2 of Regulation 856. 14. 14. COMING now to the 'offences connoting moral turpitude', I made an endeavour to explain the term in Ram Nagina Dubey v. Commissioner of police, Calcutta, 1986 (11) C. H. N. 227. by referring to different decisions of different other High courts and also to Black's Law Dictionary and it appeared that "moral turpitude' means anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. The tests were : (1) whether the act was such as could shock the moral conscience of the society in general; (2) whether the motive which led to the act was a base one and (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. In Black's Law Dictionary 'moral turpitude' has been explained to be an act or behaviour that gravely violates the moral sentiment or accepted moral standards of the community. 15. SIGNIFICANTLY, the Police Regulations while using the term 'moral turpitude' have not attempted to give it a special meaning as distinguished from its general connotation as referred to above and, accordingly, there is absolutely no scope for construing police standard of morality as different from its general standard. As a matter of fact, the standard of morality is the same everywhere. 16. NOW, as already stated, the Police Regulations not having attempted to explain what an offence connoting moral turpitude is, there is every possibility of its being misinterpreted to the disadvantage of the erring police officers who may sometime face dismissal or removal from service even for having committed a minor offence not connoting moral turpitude And this is what has actually happened in the instant three Rules. 17. HERE, in two cases, as already seen, the offence was overstaying the leave and in another case it was absence without leave Under no circumstances it can be said that such act or behaviour gravely violate the moral sentiment or accepted moral standards of the community or that the said acts imply depravity or wickedness of character or disposition of the petitioners. Undoubtedly overstaying leave without proper authority or absenting without any leave, are acts of indiscipline but not being offences connoting moral turpitude, major punishments could not be inflicted upon them on that account. Undoubtedly overstaying leave without proper authority or absenting without any leave, are acts of indiscipline but not being offences connoting moral turpitude, major punishments could not be inflicted upon them on that account. Incidentally, there is nothing so called as major offences' under the police Regulations and that being so, 'major punishments could not be inflicted upon the petitioners on the assumption that the offences committed by them come under the category of major offences. An offence under the police Regulations as already seen, may either be one connoting moral turpitude or a minor offence or minor fault. And any major punishment cannot possibly be inflicted unless the offence falls under the first category. 18. SO far minor offence or minor faults are concerned, Regulation 856 clearly provides that every effort should be made to correct the minor faults by instructions and by warnings without resorting to more severe punishments. And if any punishment has to be inflicted at all, it should be in accordance with Regulation 857. Now, regarding overstaying leave Regulation 830 of the Police regulations, Bengal provides that : "no officer shall overstay the leave he has obtained. If an officer has applied for extension of his leave, but has received no information that an extension has been granted, he shall rejoin his appointment on the expiry of his leave. " 19. REGULATION 818 (1), however, provides an exception to Regulation 830 in case of overstaying causal leave. It is hereunder : "if casual leave is overstayed and the overstayal is bona fide and no further casual leave can be granted the whole period shall be converted into regular leave. If the overstayal is not bona fide the casual leave originally granted shall be commuted to regular leave and the period of overstay shall be dealt with under Fundamental Rule 73 and Bengal Service rule 108 as overstayal of regular leave". 20. THUS, overstayal of casual leave may adequately be dealt with even without punishing the officer concerned. The Regulation also gives an indication that even overstayal of regular leave can be, dealt with under Fundamental Rule 73 and Bengal Service Rule 158. 20. THUS, overstayal of casual leave may adequately be dealt with even without punishing the officer concerned. The Regulation also gives an indication that even overstayal of regular leave can be, dealt with under Fundamental Rule 73 and Bengal Service Rule 158. In this connection it may be useful to refer to Regulation 875 which is as follows; "when an officer absents himself without leave (otherwise than by overstaying leave) and it is not thought i desirable to grant him regular leave, the delinquent may be punished for misbehaviour after drawing up proceedings. " 21. THIS Regulation, which provides for punishment for absence without leave where it is not thought desirable to grant the officer regular leave, also gives an indication that overstayal of leave is not generally considered' to be an act deserving punishment. 22. IN the above circumstances dismissal and removal from service of the petitioners in C. R. Nos. 2969 and 2970 for overstaying leave, which are major punishments, cannot at all be justified. So far the petitioner in C. R. No. 2971 is concerned, he, as already seen, was charged for having absented himself from duty without leave on four different occasions and having been found guilty of the said charge was dismissed from service on the ground of 'gross misconduct'. 23. IT is, however, not clear from the impugned orders that is was not thought desirable to grant him regular leave for the period of his absence as required by Regulation 875. And this requirement not having been fulfilled, i doubt whether he could be punished outright for misconduct. At any event, such absence without leave not being an offence connoting moral turpitude, no major punishment could be inflicted on him. 24. I do, however, agree that overstaying leave without proper authority or absence without leave are clear acts of indiscipline for any service holder far less to speak of a police officer, who is a member of disciplined force. But in view of the provisions of Regulation 856 as already referred to earlier attempt should at first be made to correct these acts of indiscipline by instruction and by warnings without resorting to more serious punishments. However, without resorting to such correction methods, the petitioners were dismissed or removed from service outright. 25. But in view of the provisions of Regulation 856 as already referred to earlier attempt should at first be made to correct these acts of indiscipline by instruction and by warnings without resorting to more serious punishments. However, without resorting to such correction methods, the petitioners were dismissed or removed from service outright. 25. THE further requirement of Regulation 856 to the effect that in awarding punishment, the general character of the offender and the nature of his past service shall be taken into consideration does not also seem to have been complied with in the matter of awarding punishment to the petitioners. 26. THE writ petitions, accordingly, succeed and the Rules issued be made absolute. The impugned orders dismissing or removing the petitioners from service are hereby set aside with the observation that in view of the nature of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners no major punishment can be inflicted on them. 27. THE respondents may, however, deal with the petitioners appropriately keeping in view the specific provisions of Regulations 818 (1), 856, 857 and 875 of the Police Regulations, Bengal, 1943 and in the light of the observations made in the body of this order within a period of ninety days from the date of the communication of the order to them. 28. LET a copy of this order be communicated to the respondents by registered post with acknowledgment due at the cost of the petitioner. The petitioners are directed to deposit such cost as expeditiously as possible. This order will govern all the three Civil Rules hereby disposed of analogously. There will be no order for costs.