' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---Petitioner, Ghulam Hussain, has impugned the judgment, dated 5-7- 2001 of learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby his Appeal No,1932(R)/1999 claiming the pensionary benefits was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in Pakistan Ordnance Factories, Wah Cantt.
In 1957. In the year 1977 a criminal case under sections 307/34, P.P.C. Was registered against him and he was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for five years. Thereafter, he was dismissed from service against which he had filed an Appeal No,167(R) of 1998 and the same was dismissed in limine. This order was challenged before this Court through Civil Petition No,666 of 1998, which was disposed of, vide order dated 11-5-1999, in the following terms:-- ' "Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he will not press this petition and will instead approach the respondent No,1 with a request for grant of pensionary benefits including gratuity and G.P. Fund etc. He may do so. If such an application is moved by him we are sure that the respondent shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law."
3. After above order, the petitioner again approached Chairman, P.O.F. For grant of pension and gratuity, etc. But his request was turned down by order dated 30-8-1999.
4. The petitioner still aggrieved, approached the Tribunal, but without any success.
5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the expression "moral turpitude" was not properly appreciated by the departmental authority and the Tribunal as well According to learned counsel, murder or attempt to murder affrays, causing hurt to another under an emotional outburst of temper, do not come within the ambit of above expression. Learned counsel also argued that only offences like fraud, cheating, rape, kidnapping, abduction etc. Fall under the scope of above expression.
6. The expression "moral turpitude" has been explained in Words an Phrases, Permanent Edition 27- A, which is as follows:-- ' "In determining whether crime is one involving "moral turpitude", the test is whether the act denounced by the statute offends the generally accepted moral code of mankind."
' "Moral turpitude" is a vague term, and its meaning depends to some extent on the state of public morals; it is anything that is done contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals; and act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow man, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man; it implies something immoral in itself, regardless of fact whether it is punishable by law."
' Above expression has also been explained in Legal Terms and Phrases (Judicially defined) by M.
Ilyas Khan, Advocate, which is as follows:- ' "The term moral turpitude is not defined anywhere but in general parlance it connotes anything done against justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. It is deprivation of character and devoid of morality.
' "The term 'moral turpitude' as defined in Ramantha Aiyer's Law Lexicon means, 'anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule or right and duty between man and man' ."
7. Perusal of the meaning of above expression clearly indicates that anything which is done contrary to the good principles of morality is within the circuit of above expression. In fact, any act which runs contrary to justice, honesty, good moral values, established judicial norms of a society, falls within the scope of above expression. Keeping in view above, it is noted that petitioners was tried and convicted for the offence mentioned earlier. The line of demarcation drawn by learned counsel for the petitioner to test as to which offence falls within the ambit of above expression, is incorrect. An offence of murder or attempt to murder is definitely against the well-recognized principles of a society. Narrow interpretation to the extent as propounded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not only unrealistic but also contrary to law. The Tribunal correctly reached the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to the pensionary benefits. Learned Tribunal has already ordered to return G.P.F. Fund, after deducting any amount outstanding against him.
8. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.