N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This is plaintiffs Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which his suit for declaration was dismissed.
2. Briefly put, plaintiff was appointed as Field Officer on temporary basis and his services were terminated vide order dated 13.9.1994 as no longer required. It is this order of termination which has been impugned by the plaintiff terming the same to be illegal and not binding upon him as he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing by the defendants.
3. Defendants contested the allegations of the plaintiff as contained in the plaint and filed their written statement therein taking the preliminary objection to the effect that the civil Court has got no jurisdiction; that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit and that the suit was not maintainable in the present form. On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff joined the service on ad hoc basis on 19.4.1978. As per his appointment letter, his services were to be regularised subject to the verification of his character and antecedents. Since as per report of the Superintendent of Police, plaintiff was found to have been convicted under section 294 of the Indian Panel Code, he was held to be guilty of moral turpitude and such was ordered to be removed vide impugned order of termination. It was further pleaded that the order of termination was perfectly legal as the plaintiff was appointed on ad hoc basis and so had no right to hold the post.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
1) Whether the order dated 13.9.1984 about the termination of service of the plaintiff is wrong, illegal and liable to be set aside as alleged ? OPP.
2) Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ? OPD.
3) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.
4) Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under section 80 CPC ? OPD.
5. Trial Court decided issue No. 1 against the plaintiff, while issues No. 2 to 4 were decided against the defendants. In view of the finding on issue No. 1, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
6. The lower appellate Court on perusal of evidence on record and after hearing the parties found no substance in the contentions raised by the appellant thereby affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant with a view to seek reversal of the decision of the Courts below has urged that conviction under section 294 of the Indian Panel Code could not be construed amounting to moral turpitude especially when instructions issued by the department clearly states so. Though the order of termination is simpliciter, yet, in fact, the conviction of the plaintiff under section 294 of the Indian Panel Code has weighed with the authorities while passing the impugned order. This being the position, the impugned order is liable to be reversed.
8. I find no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the plaintiff was appointed on ad hoc’ basis whose appointment was to be regularised subject to verification of his character and other antecedents. It is during this period that he was convicted under section 294 of the Indian Panel Code and was also fined a sum of Rs. 200/-. Section 294 of the Indian Panel Code reads as under:-
“294. Obscene acts and songs :- Whoever, to the annoyance of others,
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene songs, balled or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.”
So any obscene act by a person in public place or his signing, reciting or uttering any obscene songs, balled, or words in or near any public place amounts to commissioning of offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code. Per se such an act constitutes moral turpitude. However, in the instant case, the authorities have passed a simple order of termination which reads as under :-
“The services of Shri Pawan Kumar, Field Worker, Urban Malaria Scheme, Bhiwani, are no longer required and his services are hereby terminated with effect from 13.9.1984, the date of issue of this letter.”
9. This order can certainly not be termed either to be mala fide or against rules. Thus finding no merit in this appeal, I dismiss the appeal. No order as to costs.