The Bombay High Court recently upheld the dismissal of a candidate involved in a gambling-related offense, deeming such actions to be associated with moral turpitude. The court emphasized that employers in public service, particularly within the judiciary, have the right to reject or terminate employment for candidates whose conduct raises doubts about their trustworthiness or reliability.
Clerk-Typist Appointment Canceled by City Civil Sessions Court
A division bench, comprising Justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Manjusha Deshpande, dismissed the petition of Jayesh Limje, who had challenged the decision of the administration of the City Civil Sessions Court, Mumbai. Limje’s name had been struck off the selection list for the position of ‘Clerk-Typist’ on June 9, and his appointment was canceled.
Conviction Under Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act
.jpg)
The court’s decision was based on Limje’s conviction under Section 12A of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, for which he was fined Rs 300. Notably, Limje had failed to disclose this conviction in his initial online application, suppressing crucial information from the appointing authority. The court found this omission to be significant, stating that “when a candidate initially suppresses material facts and fraudulently obtains the appointment, it casts doubt on their trustworthiness, reliability, and credibility.”
The bench remarked, “The compounding of an offense is no different from a conviction on trial, as the accused admits guilt in exchange for leniency. Involvement in gambling is undoubtedly linked to moral turpitude, and the court cannot compel an employer to hire someone involved in such activities.”
Public Confidence and Perception at Stake
The bench also pointed out that the general public’s perception of a person involved in gambling could severely impact their credibility, especially in a judicial setting. “A person like the petitioner, working in the civil court, would erode the confidence of litigants and bar members. Even his bona fide actions could come under scrutiny,” the judges noted.
Judiciary’s Integrity Must Be Protected
Furthermore, the court emphasised that the presence of someone with a criminal record, particularly in a role tied to public service, could undermine the integrity and trust essential for the functioning of the judiciary. “Such conduct must be viewed seriously, and the appointing authority’s decision cannot be faulted,” the court concluded.
