KRISHAN DEV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as language teacher on 14.07.1975 on ad hoc basis. His services were regularised vide order dated 16.07.1989 w.e.f. 01.01.1980. However, on 27.04.1988, the petitioner had a dispute with his real brother and an FIR was lodged under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was convicted by Trial Magistrate on 25.02.1995.

(2.) On the basis of the conviction, the District Education Officer vide order dated 20.06.1995 dismissed the petitioner from services with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of conviction. The petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction which was accepted and he was released on probation for a period of two years vide judgment dated 19.11.1997. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming reinstatement in service on the basis of his sentence under Probation of Offenders Act. It is contended that since he has been dealt with under Section 4 of the Act, therefore, he shall not suffer any disqualification. The petitioner relied upon instructions dated 17/26.03.1975, Annexure P-6 to contend that release under the Probation of Offenders Act does not amount to any disability in respect of obtaining Government service. In these circumstances, the petitioner claimed that the respondents are bound to reinstate him in service since he is not suffering any disqualification on account of conviction for an offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) At the time of hearing, the learned state counsel conceded that the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal code does not involve moral turpitude as the convicts of offences involving moral turpitude are not covered under instructions dated 17/26.031975. Even otherwise, the dispute was sudden fight between two brothers. The allegations against the petitioner are not involving any moral turpitude and, therefore, he has been released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. Thus, there is no impediment. He was dismissed from service only on account of conviction by a criminal court, in view of the fact that he has been released on probation and such release on probation has removed the disqualification in terms of Section 12 of the Act, therefore, the State Government is duty bound to reinstate the petitioner in Service.