Candidate's Involvement In Gambling-Related Activities Is Moral Turpitude, Cannot Direct Consideration For Public Service: Bombay High Court

A candidate's involvement in an activity associated with gambling certainly amounts to moral turpitude and writ courts cannot order an employer to consider such a person for public service, especially in judiciary, the Bombay High Court held recently. 

A division bench of Justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the petition filed by one Jayesh Limje, who challenged the decision of the administration of the City Civil Sessions Court, Mumbai which on June 9, struck off his name from the selection list and also cancelled his appointment to the post of 'Clerk-Typist.'

The judges noted that Limje was convicted and fined Rs 300 for committing the offence under section 12A of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 but this very fact he did not mention in the initial online form and rather suppressed it from the appointing authority. 

"The compounding of an offence is no different from conviction on trial and the only difference is that the accused is given the benefit of compounding on admission of guilt. The severity of punishment is not the sole criteria to determine the effect of a crime on the society. The involvement of the petitioner in the activity associated with gambling certainly pertains to moral turpitude and the writ Court shall have no jurisdiction to direct the employer to take the person like the petitioner in employment who was involved in such an activity," the judges said in the order passed on July 31. 

The Court has to keep in mind that in cases where the candidate's/employee's conduct touches upon moral turpitude or he was involved in a serious offence then the employer may decide not to engage him in employment or terminate him from service even though he was acquitted in the criminal case, the judges said.

The general impact of a person who was involved in the gambling activity or propagating or publishing invitation to gambling cannot be overlooked, the bench said.

"This is also a relevant consideration for taking a decision whether or not to appoint a person or to terminate his services that the presence of a person like the petitioner in the civil Court as an employee would seriously challenge the confidence of the litigants and the members of the Bar. He would always be looked upon as suspect and even his bonafide actions may come under the scrutiny. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in the establishment of judiciary is quite different and distinct from other services and any deliberate statement or omission regarding a vital information must be seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given by the respondent -Authority," the judges explained. 

The bench said that the petitioner was a 'mature' person at the time of filling in the online form and that he did not mention the fact about his conviction in summary proceedings by the police, which amounts to suppression of material facts. 

"When a candidate initially suppresses the material facts and obtains the appointment fraudulently then it is a case of trustworthiness, reliability and credibility of such a candidate. The employer would have taken a decision at the very inception not to employ him, had the candidate disclosed the relevant and material information at the relevant time that he was facing the criminal trial or he had been convicted in a criminal case. The employer might not have appointed him if the correct facts would have been disclosed," the judges said. 

In such a situation, the bench emphasised, an employer cannot be forced to appoint a person or continue such an employee if the employer feels that the candidate or the employee, who at the initial stage itself made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts, cannot be appointed or continued in service because such a person cannot be relied upon in future.

"The choice must be given to the employer whether to continue or not to continue such an employee. Such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right," the judges remarked, while dismissing the plea.

Appearance:

Advocates Vijay Kurle, Vikas Pawar, Sonal Manchekar and Jayendra Manchekar appeared for the Petitioner.

Additional Government Pleader Priyabhushan Kakade along with Assistant Government Pleader Nisha Mehra represented the State. 

Case Title: Jayesh Bandu Limie vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 10460 of 2025)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment