Normally No Mens Rea In Motor Vehicle Accident: Bombay HC Reinstates Teacher Suspended On 'Moral Turpitude' Ground
The Bombay High Court has observed that normally in a motor vehicle accident, unless the circumstances speak otherwise, there can be no question of any mens rea.
The Court observed thus in a case involving a man working as an Associate Professor in an Institution, who suffered suspension from service on the ground that he was in judicial custody on a criminal charge for a period exceeding 48 hours.
A Division Bench comprising Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain held, “… we are more than satisfied that respondent nos. 1 and 3 were not correct, and/or were illegal, to hold that merely because the petitioner was involved in a motor vehicle accident leading to the FIR in question, under which he was arrested and suffered custody for more than 48 hours, the petitioner was likely to be guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude. We may observe that normally in a motor vehicle accident, unless the circumstances speak otherwise, there can be no question of any mens rea or a criminal intent.”
Advocate Pramod N. Joshi represented the petitioner while Addl. G.P. Shruti D. Vyas and Advocate Vishwanath Talkute represented the respondents.
In this case, a suspension order was issued under the provisions of the “Statutes” of the University of Pune, which governed the terms and conditions of service of the teachers appointed in the University/Colleges and Institutions conducted by the University/Affiliated Colleges/Constituent Colleges/ Recognized Institutions of the University of Poona, as framed under Section 42 and/or 73 of the Poona University Act, 1974, in vogue at the relevant time. Such ‘Statutes’ of the University continue to operate under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, which presently govern the non-agricultural universities and the institutions affiliated to the universities. Statute 433-A(3) provides for “Procedure for infliction of major penalties, under which Clause (3)(A)(i) provides for ‘suspension’.
Thus, the said statute of the University under the heading “Suspension” provided that if the teacher is alleged to be guilty of an offence of a criminal nature involving “moral turpitude” and if there are reasons to believe that in the event of the offence being proved against him, he would deserve to be removed or dismissed from service, the Competent Authority as specified in Statute 433, shall first decide whether the person concerned should be placed under suspension. The grievance of the petitioner was that the suspension order was illegal, being contrary to the provisions of Statute 433-A(3)(A)(i) of the Statute of University of Pune, inasmuch as, the petitioner could have been suspended only in the event of the petitioner being involved in the commission of an offence involving moral turpitude, with the likelihood that such offence being proved against him, he would deserve to be removed or dismissed from service.
The High Court in view of the aforesaid facts noted, “In the facts of the present case, it cannot be held that the petitioner should suffer suspension on the ground of he being involved in an offence involving moral turpitude. Thus, the action on the part of respondent nos. 1 and 3 to suspend the petitioner by the order impugned in the present proceedings would be patently illegal.”
The Court said that the petitioner would be required to be paid the regular salary for the entire period of suspension till reinstatement and for which the respondents are at liberty to make appropriate proposal to the State Government.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title- Dr. S.D. Nikam v. Gokhale Education Society Educational Trust & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:BHC-AS:35178-DB)
