Holding

Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act applies only to disqualifications expressly attached to the offence by the statute and does not preclude a conviction from being used as a ground for dismissal from government service.

Summary

Harichand was convicted under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The Sessions Court upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence, releasing him on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Because of the conviction, the Director of School Education dismissed him from his government post, a dismissal the appellant challenged through a writ petition that the High Court dismissed. The appellant argued that Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act barred the use of his conviction as a ground for dismissal. The Supreme Court held that Section 12 removes only disqualifications expressly attached to the offence by the statute defining the offence, and does not prevent the conviction from being considered for service dismissal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the dismissal upheld.

Issues considered

Whether Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 eliminates the disqualification arising from a conviction for the purpose of dismissal from government service when the offender is released on probation.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 408
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958s. 12, s. 4(1)

Subjects

Probation of Offenders ActSection 12disqualificationgovernment service dismissalconvictionIPC Section 408probationservice law

Judgment

HARICHAND A
v.
r--1
DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JANUARY 14, 1998

[S.P. BHARUCHA AND V. N. KHARE, JJ.] B
--1-
Criminal Law :

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
c
Section 12-Provided for removal of disqualification attaching to a
conviction-Applicability of-Accused was convicted under S.408 IPC but
was released on probation under S. 4(1)-By reason of the conviction accused
was dismissed from Government service-Validity of-Held; S. 12 applicable
only in respect of a disqualification that goes with a conviction under the
D
~ law which provides for the offence and its punishment-Hence, S. 12 did not
prohibit taking into account the conviction for the purposes of dismissal from
Government service-Penal Code, 1860, S. 408-Service Law.

The appellant was convicted of an offence under Section 408 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment E
for a term of two years aud 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 probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958.

By reason of the appellant's conviction, the respondent, in whose employ
F
,(,

the appellant was, dismissed him from Government service. The dismissal
was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition filed before the High Court,
which was dismissed. Heuce this appeal.

On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the conviction could G
not have been taken into account for the purposes of removing the appellant
~
from Government service by reason of the provisions ofsection 12 of the Act.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court
,
' HELD : 1. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 would H
143
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) I S.C.R.

A 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 !he words" disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of
an offence under such law" therein. Where the law that provides for an
offence and its punishment also stipulates a disqualification, a person convicted
B 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.
[145-G-H; 146-Al

C Aitha Chander Rao v. State of A.P., [19811 Supp. SSC 17, held
inapplicable.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1451 of 1987.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.3.85 of the High Court of Punjab
D and Haryana in CWP No. 1531 /85.

Ujjagar Singh and J.D. Jain for the Appellants.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E S.P. BHARUCHA, J. The respondent has been served but has not 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
F 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 probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 on his entering a bond for good conduct in the sum of Rs. 5,000
and furnishing a surety for the like amount.

G 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 the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana. By the order dated 25th March, 1985,
which is under appeal, the writ petition was summarily dismissed.

H Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction could
HARi CHAND v. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION [S.P. BHARUCHA, J.] ]45

not have been taken into account for the purposes of removing the appellant A
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 Jaw, 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 B
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 .. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1981] Supp. SCC
17. The said Rao had been convicted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal C
Code and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and pay a
fine of Rs. 500. On appeal to this Court against the judgment of the High
Court affirming the conviction, 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 D
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. This 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." E
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 F
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 G
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 its
punishment also stipulates a disqualification, a person convicted of the offence H
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] I S.C.R.

A 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.
B
v.s.s. Appeal dismissed. ,.(, .

..,.