LALMAN VERMA Vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CUM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this court challenging the order dated 27.12.2011, vide which he was dismissed from service.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of conviction on 8.7.2011 in a criminal case registered against him under Sec. 304-A Penal Code. No doubt, conviction of the petitioner was upheld by the lower appellate court on 6.3.2012, however, Criminal Revision No. 808 of 2012 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this court on 18.4.2012 directing release of the petitioner on probation. It was further mentioned in the order that conviction will not have any adverse affect on the service of the petitioner. Considering that in the case in hand, when the FIR was registered, the petitioner was not at fault and the man died on account of electrocution, he cannot be held responsible for the death. Once this court had recorded that conviction will not have adverse affect on his service career, the order passed by the respondent dismissing the petitioner from service on account of his conviction only deserves to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is not in dispute that conviction of the petitioner was upheld upto this court. Mere release of the petitioner on probation will not change the nature of conviction. It is a case of gross negligence of the petitioner. The other worker died as the petitioner did not take care of the fact that power supply in the line was to be kept off during the period the other worker was working on the line. It was on account of negligence of the petitioner that the other worker died. While referring to a judgment of Honourable the Supreme Court in Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board and another Vs. Ram Sajivan and another, 2007(3) RSJ 513 : 2007 (5) SLR 509 (SC) , learned counsel submitted that even if a convict is released on probation, the same does not have any effect on his conviction. He cannot claim reinstatement in service on account of his release on probation. The conviction and sentence are two different concepts. The fact that the petitioner had already been dismissed from service was not before this court as even the respondent could not point out the same being not a party in the revision petition.