Moral turpitude disqualification applies to conviction under Section 182 IPC, invalidating appointment as Nyaya Panch.

Section 43 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act did not bar appointment of Nyaya Panches merely because some Gaon Panchayat seats were still vacant, as the statutory scheme allowed appointment from duly elected persons and later filling of remaining vacancies. The challenge based on Achhaibar Singh's alleged illiteracy also failed because Rule 85 required Hindi literacy in Devanagari script and the material did not prove non-compliance. By contrast, a conviction under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code was held to involve moral turpitude under Section 5-A(h), so Baijnath Singh was disqualified and his appointment as Nyaya Panch was invalid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the District Magistrate's appointment of Nyaya Panches was invalid because some seats in the Gaon Panchayat remained unfilled at the time of appointment. (ii) Whether Achhaibar Singh lacked the statutory literacy qualification for appointment as Nyaya Panch. (iii) Whether Baijnath Singh's conviction under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code attracted disqualification for appointment on the ground of moral turpitude.

Issue (i): Whether the District Magistrate's appointment of Nyaya Panches was invalid because some seats in the Gaon Panchayat remained unfilled at the time of appointment.

Analysis: Section 43 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act required appointment of Nyaya Panches from persons elected under Section 12(6) and Section 12-A. The existence of some unfilled seats did not postpone or suspend the power of appointment. Section 12(8) itself contemplated that remaining vacancies could be filled by nomination, and the persons appointed were already among those elected in accordance with the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The challenge to the appointments on the ground of incompleteness of the Gaon Panchayat failed and was against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether Achhaibar Singh lacked the statutory literacy qualification for appointment as Nyaya Panch.

Analysis: Rule 85 of the Panchayat Raj Rules required the appointee to be able to read and write Hindi in Devanagari script correctly. The material before the Court did not establish that Achhaibar Singh lacked that qualification, and the allegation amounted only to a dispute as to the manner in which he could read and write.

Conclusion: The objection to Achhaibar Singh's appointment on the ground of illiteracy failed and was against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether Baijnath Singh's conviction under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code attracted disqualification for appointment on the ground of moral turpitude.

Analysis: Section 5-A(h) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act disqualified a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. The Court held that an offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code involves moral turpitude whether the false information is given to induce a public servant to act improperly or to cause injury or annoyance to another person, because the conduct is contrary to honesty, justice, and good morals.

Conclusion: Baijnath Singh was disqualified and his appointment as Nyaya Panch was invalid, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only to the extent that Baijnath Singh's appointment was quashed and he was restrained from functioning as Nyaya Panch; all other objections failed, and the remaining relief was refused.

Ratio Decidendi: An offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code constitutes moral turpitude for the purpose of statutory disqualification, and a person so convicted cannot validly be appointed to the office governed by that disqualification.

---