http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: KARAM SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (2)   382        1996 SCALE  (2)211

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      We have  heard the  learned counsel for the petitioner. The admitted  facts are  that the petitioner and others were charged for  an offence  under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC  and also  under Sections  323 and 324. The Sessions Court convicted the petitioner and others but on appeal, the High Court  set aside the conviction of the petitioner under Section 302  read with Section 34 and also under Section 324 but maintained the conviction under Section 323 and released him on  probation. Thereafter,  the  petitioner  sought  for reinstatement.  The  authorities,  since  have  had  already dismissed the  petitioner declined to reinstate him into the service, in  view of  the provisions of Rule 16.2.(2) of the Punjab Police  Rules. He challenged its correctness thereof. The Division  per of  the High Court LPA No. 657/95 by order dated 8.8.1995  dismissed the  same. Thus this special leave petition.      It is contended by Shri Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner that  since the  petitioner has been acquitted of the charge  for the  offence under  Sections 302 and 324 IPC and he  having been  released on probation for offence under Section 323,  it cannot be said that there is any impediment in his  way for  reinstatement and that, therefore, the view of the  authorities and  the High Court is not valid in law. We find  no force  in the  contention. It  is true that this Court in  Shankar Das  vs. Union  of [(1985)  2 SCC 358] had held that  on  acquittal  and  release  on  probation  under Section 12  of the  Probation of  Offenders Act,  1958,  the authorities are  entitled to  consider on  the facts in each case whether  the appellant therein could be reinstated into the service.  It is  to be remembered that conviction is one part of  it and  release on probation is another. Later part only enables  the delinquent  not to undergo the sentence on showing  his  good  conduct  during  the  period  for  which probation  was   granted.  Suppose   during  the  period  of probation, he  commits another  offence, then  his probation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

gets terminated  and he  would  be  liable  to  undergo  the sentence. When  a civil  servant  is      convicted  for  an offence, it  is his  misconduct that  led  to the dismissal. The conviction  in this  case is  on    the  ground  of  his participation in causing the death of  and causing injury to one person.  Though he  was   acquitted of  the  offence  of murder, he  being a Constable at the relevant time and being a disciplined  member of  the force,  he was not expected to participate   in the  commission of  crime; instead,  he was expected to    prevent  the  commission.  In  Shankar  Das’s (Supra),   it was  held that since opportunity was not given before taking  the decision,  the removal  from service  was held not valid in law.      In Union  of India  vs. Bakshi  Ram [(199O) 2 SCC 426], this Court  considered the  effect  of  Section  12  of  the Probation of  Offenders Act  and of  the power  to remove  a public   servant    and   also    the   conviction    as   a disqualification, though he was released on probation. After approving the  consistent reasoning  given by  several  High Courts as  noted in para 11 of the judgment, this Court held that though  Section 12 gives a right to delinquent, it does not wipe  out the offence and it would be a disqualification attached  to   the  conviction.  The  authorities  would  be entitled to  take that factor into consideration in imposing punishment of  removal  from  service.  In  that  case,  the penalty of  dismissal from  service was  altered into one of removal from service.      In Dy.  Director of Collegiate Education (Admn.) vs. S. Nagoor Meera [(1995) 3 SCC 377], another Bench of this Court has considered  the controversy whether, when the accused is convicted by  the Criminal Court, the disciplinary authority would still await the outcome of the case. This Court opined that once  the accused  was convicted,  it forms  basis  for taking the  action under  proviso to  Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, which will, however, be subject to the ultimate result  of the  prosecution case.  In the event the case ends  in favour  of the  accused  and  honourably  gets acquitted, then  the authorities  are required to reconsider the order  of removal.  That ratio  also does  not help  the petitioner since he has already been convicted under Section 323 and  it is  a disqualification though he was released on probation. Under  these circumstances,  the ratio  in Bakshi Ram’s case would be applicable to the facts in this case. In that view,  the petitioner being a member of the disciplined police force,  the authorities  were  justified in rejecting his  reinstatement.  However,  we  convert  the  penalty  of dismissal into one of removal from service.      The SLP is accordinqly dismissed.