JUDGMENT Heard. 2. Short question involved in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether a conviction for an offence under Sections 147, 149, 323/149, IPC would tantamount to a "moral turpitude" leading to termination of service. 3. Facts, wherefrom the question emanates briefly are that, the petitioner was initially appointed as General Mazdoor in 1975 (on 23-7-1975). He was promoted as Tub Munshi on 1-1-1978 and as Mining Sardar on 1-1-1987. The petitioner was made Senior Mining Sardar, Grade B from 1-1-1995 and Mining Sardar, Grade A, Production-cum-Safety Assistant, Grade A, in the year 2001. Keeping in view the services rendered, petitioner was awarded with "Johilla Samman". 4. That, complaint was lodged against the petitioner by one Mathura Prasad a terminated employee of State Forest Department, which led to registration of offence under Sections 147, 149, 323/149, IPC. Trial led therein led to passing of order dated 28-3-2005; whereby the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 147/149, IPC for six months' RI under Section 323/149, IPC for six months' RI and Rs. 500/- cost. The sentence was, however, suspended and the petitioner was given the benefit of probation on his depositing Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said conviction whereon by order dated 27-4-2005 Additional Sessions Judge, Umariya enlarged him on bail. The conviction of the petitioner led to issue of show-cause notice on 23/25-6-2005; whereby, the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why because of his conviction he be not terminated from services. The said show-cause notice was purportedly in consonance with Clause 24.1 read with Clause 26.8 of the Certified Standing Orders. 5. These provisions stipulates: - "24.1. For terminating the services of permanent workman having less than 1 year of continuous service notice of one month in writing with reasons for wages in lieu thereof shall be given by the employer: Provided that no such notice shall be required to be given when the services of the workman are terminated on account of misconduct established in accordance with the Standing Orders, Clause 26 of the Certified Standing Orders lays down the instances of "Acts of Misconduct" whereof Clause 26.8 stipulates "Conviction in any Court of law for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude"." 6. Subsequently, in pursuance to said show-cause notice, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the impugned order for the reason that he was convicted for an offence under Sections 147, 149, 323/149, IPC. 7. Challenging the order of termination, it is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the termination of service since could only have been if the conviction was for a criminal offence involving moral turpitude and since the petitioner was not convicted of such an offence the termination order is ipso facto bad. 8. To substantiate this submission that an offence under Sections 147, 149, 323/149, IPC does not tantamount to an offence involving moral turpitude, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Hazarilal, AIR 2008 SC 1300 , as also the decision in Shankar Das Vs. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 772 . 9. Countering the submission put-forth on behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondents has to urge that the petitioner having been convicted for an offence under Sections 147, 149, 323/149, IPC was issued a show-cause notice in pursuance to provisions contained under Certified Standing Orders as to why for the said conviction his services be not terminated. It is contended that conviction for an offence under Sections 147, 149, 323/149, IPC, since involves a criminal offence involving moral turpitude, his services were rightly terminated being in consonance with the provisions contained under Clause 24.1 read with Clause 26.8 of the Certified Standing Orders. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. The question which crops up for consideration is as to whether a conviction for an offence under Sections 147, 149, 323/149, IPC would tantamount to "a crime involving moral turpitude". The expression "moral turpitude" was elaborately considered in Pavan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another, (1996) 4 SCC 17 , wherein Paragraph 12, it is observed "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 ......" 12. In Allahabad Bank and another vs. Deepak Kumar lihola, (1997) 4 SCC 1 , it was observed in Paragraph 8 "What is an offence involving "moral turpitude" must depend upon the facts of each case......". In Allahabad Bank and another vs. Deepak Kumar lihola, (1997) 4 SCC 1 , it was observed in Paragraph 8 "What is an offence involving "moral turpitude" must depend upon the facts of each case......". In the said case, reliance was placed on Baleshwar Singh Vs. District Magistrate and Collector, AIR 1959 All. 71 , wherein in respect of expression moral turpitude it is observed: - "The expression 'moral turpitude' is not defined anywhere. But, it means anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. It implies depravity and wickedness of character or disposition of the person charged with the particular conduct. Every false statement made by a person may not be moral turpitude, but, it would be so if it discloses vileness or depravity in the doing of any private and social duty which a person owes to his fellowmen or to the society in general. If, therefore, the individual charged with a certain conduct owes a duty, cither to another individual or to the society in general, to act in a specific manner or not to so act and he still acts contrary to it and does so knowingly, his conduct must be held to be due to vileness and depravity. It will be contrary to accepted customary rule and duty between man and man." 13. Recently, in Sushil Kumar Singhal Vs. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, (2010) 8 SCC 573 , it is observed: - "25. In view of the above, it is evident that moral turpitude means anything contrary to honesty, modesty or good morals. It means vileness and depravity. In fact, the conviction of a person in a crime involving moral turpitude impeaches his credibility as he has been found to have indulged in shameful, wicked, and base activities." 14. Question is whether the conviction for an offence under Sections 147, 149, 323/149, IPC, would be criminal offence involving moral turpitude. Section 147 stipulates: - "147. Punishment for rioting.- Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." Section 149 stipulates: - "149. Section 147 stipulates: - "147. Punishment for rioting.- Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." Section 149 stipulates: - "149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.- If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence." Section 323 stipulates: - "323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.- Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both." 15. The offences under aforesaid provisions are triable by a Magistrate and if found guilty the punishment for an offence under Section 147 is two years imprisonment or fine or both. Whereas; for an offence under Section 323 punishment is imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- or both. It is the voluntary causing of hurt, which lead to conviction under Section 323 and if such offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly that he invites punishment under Sections 147 and 149, IPC. The offence for which the petitioner has been convicted does not lead to conclusion that the conduct of the petitioner was "inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity", as could be termed as "crime involving moral turpitude" as would warrant a dismissal from service. 16. In view whereof the order of termination cannot be given the stamp of approval. The same is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner if otherwise he has not attained the age of superannuation; however, in the given facts of the present case, the petitioner shall not be entitled for the back wages as it is the conduct of the petitioner, which has led the respondent Management to take an action. 17. Petition is allowed to the extent above. No costs.