HARICHAND versus DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 143 · Decided: 14-01-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

HARICHAND 
A 
r--1 
v. 
DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION 
JANUARY 14, 1998 
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND V. N. KHARE, JJ.] 
B 
--1-
Criminal Law : 
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: 
c 
Section 12-Provided for removal of disqualification attaching to a 
conviction-Applicability of-Accused was convicted under S.408 IPC but 
was released on probation under S. 4(1)-By reason of the conviction accused 
was dismissed from Government service-Validity of-Held; S. 12 applicable 
only in respect of a disqualification that goes with a conviction under the D 
~ 
law which provides for the offence and its punishment-Hence, S. 12 did not 
prohibit taking into account the conviction for the purposes of dismissal from 
Government service-Penal Code, 1860, S. 408-Service Law. 
The appellant was convicted of an offence under Section 408 of the 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment E 
for a term of two years aud to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000---In appeal, the Sessions 
Court upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence and directed that the 
appellant be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of 
Offenders Act, 1958. 
By reason of the appellant's conviction, the respondent, in whose employ F 
,(, 
the appellant was, dismissed him from Government service. The dismissal 
was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition filed before the High Court, 
which was dismissed. Heuce this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the conviction could G 
not have been taken into account for the purposes of removing the appellant 
~ 
from Government service by reason of the provisions ofsection 12 of the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
, 
HELD : 1. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 would H 
' 
143 
144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998) I S.C.R. 
A apply only in respect of a disqualification that goes with a conviction under 
the law which provides for the offence and its punishment. That is the plain 
meaning of !he words" disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of 
an offence under such law" therein. Where the law that provides for an 
offence and its punishment also stipulates a disqualification, a person convicted 
B of the offence but released on probation does not, by reason of Section 12, 
suffer the disqualification. It cannot be held that, by reason of section 12, a 
conviction for an offence should not be taken into account for the purposes 
-~ "' 
of dismissal of the person convicted from Government service. 
[145-G-H; 146-Al 
C 
Aitha Chander Rao v. State of A.P., [19811 Supp. SSC 17, held 
inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1451 of 1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.3.85 of the High Court of Punjab 
D and Haryana in CWP No. 1531 /85. 
Ujjagar Singh and J.D. Jain for the Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
S.P. BHARUCHA, J. The respondent has been served but has not put 
in an appearance. 
The appellant was convicted of an offence under Section 408 of the 
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a 
F term of.two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. In appeal, the Sessions Court 
upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence and directed that the appellant 
be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders 
Act, 1958 on his entering a bond for good conduct in the sum of Rs. 5,000 
and furnishing a surety for the like amount. 
G 
By reason of the appellant's conviction, the respondent, in whose 
employ the appellant was, dismissed him from Government service. The 
dismissal was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition filed before the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana. By the order dated 25th March, 1985, 
which is under appeal, the writ petition was summarily dismissed. 
H 
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction could 
HARi CHAND v. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION [S.P. BHARUCHA, J.] 
]45 
not have been taken into account for the purposes of removing the appellant A 
from Government service by reason of the provisions of Section 12 of the 
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the operative portion of which reads: 
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other Jaw, a person found 
guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of Section 
3 or Section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a 
conviction of an offence under such law". 
Learned counsel drew our attention to the o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.