Eligibility for Govt job Conviction in Drink and Drive Case
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 04 August 2015
This query is : Resolved
I am convicted in drink and drive case and fined rs 2200 and 3 days imprisonment by court. Will this disqualify me for getting GOVT jobs in future?
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 04 August 2015
Please reply
Guest
(Expert) 04 August 2015
Legally No Cases/Complaints could be filed against an Anonymous.So Not to Worry
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 04 August 2015
My name is ajay
P. Venu
(Expert) 05 August 2015
Drunken driving involves moral turpitude. It may dis-entitle you from Government job. However, an alternate view is possible if the offence was not repeated.
At the appropriate stage matter could be tested judicially.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 05 August 2015
conviction is a conviction and bar on from govt job perspective and moral turpitude is not relevant .
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 05 August 2015
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-05-17/news/39336632_1_conviction-central-administrative-tribunal-delhi-high-court
NEW DELHI: Employment in a public sector organization shall not be denied to a job-seeker on the ground of conviction in a criminal case unless offences have an element of "moral turpitude", the Delhi High Court has said.
A bench of justices Pradeep Nandrajog and V Kameswar Rao said an inference should not be drawn about the antecedent and character of a job-seeker on the basis of his conviction in a criminal case.
"The law declared was that every conviction for an offence would not require an inference to be drawn that the antecedent and character of the wrong doer is of a kind that public employment has to be denied," the court said.
Citing a previous verdict, the bench said "further, offences being classified as cognizable and non-cognizable, bailable as well as non-bailable, it was highlighted that only such offences which have an element of moral turpitude would warrant public employment to be denied."
The observations came while dismissing an appeal of Delhi police which was filed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
The CAT had given the judgement in favour of a constable who was earlier convicted and fined by a criminal court after he pleaded guilty in a case lodged for rashly driving his motorcycle.
Police had taken the plea that the constable used to drive four-wheeled police vehicle and after the conviction, he cannot be allowed to continue.
The court upheld the judgment of the CAT.
P. Venu
(Expert) 05 August 2015
My suggestion was based on the above principle. It is elementary for good administrator to be capable of distinguishing a mistake from a mischief.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 06 August 2015
It is ideal where mistake and mischief is distinguished.
But for denial of govt of the conviction is conviction. Further more, even if someone is in service it is a professional misconduct for govt servant to be found drunk in public and action can be taken by employer even if a criminal case is pending, without waiting for its outcome.
P. Venu
(Expert) 06 August 2015
Law sans ideals! And Law beyond Justice!!
As a novice in Law I am deficient in the acumen to posit myself as a super expert.
