TRIKHA RAM Vs. V K SETH AMD ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this appeal as to whether or not the appellant who was convicted for a criminal offence should have been heard by the disciplinary authority before imposing the punishment is concluded against the appellant by a decision of a five Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 : (AIR 1985 SC 1416). As a matter of fact in the case of Tulsi Ram Patel which has been dealt with in para 149 (of SCC) : (Para 148 of AIR) onwards was very similar to the facts of the present case. Under the circumstances, so far as this point is concerned, the appellant cannot succeed. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, called our attention to the fact that the appellant was released on probation by the learned Magistrate who recorded the order of conviction. It is contended with justification that having regard to S. 12, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the punishment of dismissal from service which would disqualify him from future government service should not have been imposed. Section 12, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 reads thus :