15 July 2025 Civil Writ Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law  

This writ petition of Sanjay Baban Selar v/s State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai & Others challenges the dismissal of a village panchayat employee (the petitioner) from his post as a peon. The petitioner was dismissed following his conviction by a lower court for offenses under sections 323 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically for voluntarily causing hurt and assault or use of criminal force. The dismissal was upheld by both the Block Development Officer and the Chief Executive Officer.

The petitioner argues that his dismissal was invalid for several reasons: it was done without following the principles of natural justice, as he was not given a show-cause notice or an opportunity to be heard; the conviction was based on a misunderstanding of the facts, as the authorities mistakenly believed he was convicted under the more serious section 354 IPC (outraging a woman's modesty), of which he was acquitted; and the offenses he was actually convicted of (sections 323 and 352) do not involve "moral turpitude" as defined in the relevant service rules (Bombay Village Panchayats Servants Rules, 1960). The petitioner's case was further strengthened by a subsequent development during the pendency of the petition, where a higher court overturned his conviction and acquitted him entirely.

The court found in favor of the petitioner, noting several key issues with the dismissal. First, the court held that the dismissal was based on a fundamental misconception—the authorities incorrectly assumed the petitioner was convicted under Section 354 IPC. Second, the court emphasized that the offenses the petitioner was actually convicted of (323 and 352 IPC) do not constitute "moral turpitude" as required for dismissal under the relevant service rules. The court also highlighted that even in cases of dismissal based on a criminal conviction, the employer must apply their mind to the circumstances of the case and the nature of the offense, and the employee should be given an opportunity to present their side. The court rejected the arguments of the respondents, who cited cases that were factually distinguishable.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the dismissal was non-compliant with constitutional mandates and was an arbitrary exercise of power. Since the petitioner was acquitted during the pendency of the petition, the entire basis for his dismissal was vitiated. The court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner's reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

Section 323., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 352., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 354., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860