SHIVNATH RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether an order of release on execution of bond under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ('the Act' in short) precludes the Government from dismissing a convict employee or entitles him to reinstatement is the point under consideration in this writ petition.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the petition are short and simple. The petitioner along with his brother was put on trial for having committed offences under Sections 420 and 406 Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution case, he had induced the complainant Thithan Paswan to pay him Rs. 2500.00 as consideration for providing his unemployed son-in-law a job in the bank. The trial court found the petitioner as also his brother guilty of the offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced them to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellate court maintained the conviction but modified the sentence directing there to be released on execution of bond for keeping peace and good behaviour for a period of one year on 24-5-86 under Section 4 of the Act. Since the finding of guilt and order of conviction was likely to visit the petitioner with civil consequences as regards his status as Government servant, he preferred revision being Cr. Rev. 1313 of 1986 which was admitted to hearing on 19-11-86. On 3-8-88 the impugned order was passed by the Director of Fisheries dismissing the petitioner from service on the ground of his conviction under Section 420 IPC. The present writ petition was filed on 28-9-88. Since the dismissal was on account of conviction in the criminal case which was under challenge in this Court as aforesaid, the writ petition was admitted to hearing along with Cr. Rev. 1313 of 1986, obviously because in the event of the conviction being set aside, the order of dismissal from service will have to be set aside too. Both the cases, accordingly, were heard together. However, they are disposed of by separate order. I may mention here that having given my anxious consideration to the facts of the criminal case I am not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner and on that premise I proceed to consider the validity of the dismissal order.

(3.) Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that by reason of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer any disqualification attached to his conviction and, therefore, the order of dismissal is bad and illegal. Counsel also contended that the order should not have been passed during pendency of the revision and the order was therefore bad on account of non-application of mind. In support of the contention counsel sought to place reliance on the Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway and another v. T. R. Challappan (AIR 1975 SC 2216 : 1975 Lab IC 1598). He, however, beat a hasty retreat when he was reminded that the said decision had already been overruled in the well known case of Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel) (AIR 1985 SC 1416 : 1985 Lab IC 1393). He then referred to the decisions in Trikha Ram v. V. K. Seth, (AIR 1988 SC 285) : 1988 Lab IC 383 and Union of India v. Bakshi Ram (AIR 1990 SC 987) : 1990 Cri LJ 1013 in support of the plea that the punishment should be modified and reduced to any other punishment so as not to visit the petitioner with civil consequence in future.