Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
HARICHAND
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/01/1998
BENCH:
S.P. BHARUCHA, V.N. KHARE
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
S.P. BHARUCHA, J.
The respondent has been served but has put in an
appearance.
The appellant was convicted of an offence under Section
408 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and to pay a
fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In appeal, the Sessions Court upheld
the conviction but set aside the sentence and directed that
the appellant be released on entering a bond for good
conduct in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- and furnishing a surety
for the like amount.
By reason of the appellant’s conviction, the
respondent, in whose employ the appellant was, dismissed him
from Government service. The dismissal was challenged by the
appellant in a writ petition filed before High Court of
Punjab and Haryana. By the order dated 25th March, 1985,
which is under appeal, the writ petition was summarily
dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
conviction could not have been taken into account for the
purposes of removing the appellant from Government service
by reason of the provisions of Section 12 of the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958, the operative portion of which
reads:
"Notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law, a person found
guilty of an offence and dealt with
under the provisions of Section 3
or Section 4 shall not suffer
disqualification, if any, attaching
to a conviction of an offence under
such law".
Learned counsel drew our attention to the order of this
Court in the case of Aitha Chander Rao V/s. State of Andhra
Pradesh [1981 (Supp.) SCC 17]. The said Rao had been
convicted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and pay
and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. On appeal to this Court against
the judgment of the High Court affirming the conviction,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
this Court found no reason to interfere on the merits of the
appeal. The only question that it considered was whether it
was an appropriate case in which the appellant before it
could be released on probation. The Sessions Judge had found
that there was some amount of contributory negligence on the
part of the of the said Rao. Having regard "to the peculiar
circumstances of this case" it was thought to be a fit case
to release the said Rao on probation. The Court added, As
the appellant has been released on probation this may not
affect his service career in view of Section 12 of the
Probation of Offenders Act"
The order in the case of the said Rao was delivered on
an appeal against conviction. The conviction was sustained
but, having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the
case, the said Rao was released on probation and it was
added that "this may not affect his service career in view
of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act". We do not
find in the order in Rao’s case any discussion of the
provision of Section 12 or of the meaning of words
"disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an
offence under such law" such therein. The order cannot,
therefore, be regarded as a binding precedent upon the
point.
In our view, Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders
Act would apply only in respect of a disqualification that
goes with a conviction under the law which provides for the
offence and its punishment. That is the plain meaning of the
words "disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction
of an offence under such law" therein. Where the law that
provides for an offence and offence and its punishment also
stipulates a disqualification, a person convicted of the
offence but released on probation does not, by reason of
Section 12, suffer the disqualification. It cannot be held
that, by reason of Section 12, a conviction for an offence
should not be taken into account for the purposes of
dismissal of the person convicted from Government service.
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.