KARAM SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1030 · Decided: 29-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KARAM SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 
JANUARY 29, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Seroice Law : 
Punjab Police Rules-Police Constabl~Dismissal from seroice 011 
C being convicted !!nder S.323 !PC and released 011 probation-Plea for 
reinstatement-Rejection of-Held, authmities were justified in rejecting his 
reinstatement, as he was a member of the disciplined face-Howeve1; dismiss-
al converted into removal from seroice. 
D 
E 
F 
Union of India v. Bakshi Ram, [1990] 2 SCC 426, held applicable. 
Shankar Das v. Union of India, [1985] 2 SCC 358, explained and held 
inapplicable. 
Dy. Director of Collegiate Education (Admn.) v. S. Nagoor Meera, 
[1955] 3 sec 377, held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 903 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.95 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in L.P.A. No. 657 of 1995. 
R.K. Kapoor, P. Varma, S.K. Srivastava and Anis Ahmad Khan for 
the Petitioner. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The admitted 
G facts are that the petitioner and others were charged for an offence under 
Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and also under Section 323 and 324. 
The Sections Court convicted the petitioner and others but on appeal, the 
i 
~ 
High Court set aside the conviction of the petitioner under Section 302 
read with Section 34 and also under Section 324 but maintained the 
H conviction under Section 323 and released him on probation. Thereafter, 
1030 
KARAM SINGH v. STATE 
1031 
the petitioner sought for reinstatement. The authorities, since have had A 
already dismissed the petitioner declined to reinstate him into the service, 
in view of the provisions of Rule 16.2.(2.) of the Punjab Police Rules. He 
challenged its correctness thereof. The Division Bench of the High Court 
in LPA No. 657/95 but order dated 8.8.1995 dismissed the same. Thus this 
special leave petition. 
It is contended by Shri Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner 
that since the petitioner has been acquitted ofthe charge for the offence 
under Sections 302 and 324 !PC and he having been released on probation 
B 
for offence under Section 323, it cannot be said that there is any impedi-
ment in his way for reinstatement and that, therefore, the view of the 
C 
authorities and the High Court is not valid in law. We find no force in the 
contention. It is true that this Court in Shankar Das v. Union of India, 
[1985] 2 SCC 358 had held that on acquittal and release on probation under 
Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the authorities are 
entitled to consider on the facts in each case whether the appellant therein D 
could be reinstated into the service. It is to be remembered that conviction 
is one part of it and release on probation is another. Later part only enables 
the delinquent not to undergo the sentence on showing his good conduct 
during the period for which probation was granted. Suppose during the 
period of probation, he ·commits another offence, then his probation gets 
terminated and he would be liable to undergo the sentence. When a civil 
E 
servant is convicted for an offence, it is his misconduct that led to the 
dismissal. The conviction in this case is on the ground of his participation 
in causing the death of and causing injury to one person. Though he was 
acquitted of the offence of murder, he being a constable at the relevant 
time and being a disciplined member of the force, he was not expected to F 
participate in the commission of crime; instead, he was expected to prevent 
the commission. In Shankar Das's case (supra), it was held that since 
opportunity was not given before taking the decision, the removal from 
service was held not valid in law. 
In Union of India v. Bakshi Ram, [1990] 2 SCC 426, this Court G 
considered the effect of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act and 
of the power to remove a· public servant and also the conviction as a 
disqualification, though he was released on probation. After approving the 
consistent reasoning given by several High Courts as noted in para 11 of 
the judgment, this Court held that though Section 12 gives a right to H 
1032 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1996] 1 S.C.R. 
A delinquent, it does not wipe out the offence and it would be a disqualifica-
tion attached to the conviction. The authorities would be entitled to take 
~ -
that factor into consideration in imposing punis

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