UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus BAKSHI RAM

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 760 · Decided: 01-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
BAKSHI RAM 
MARCH 1, 1990 
B 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.) 
c 
D 
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: Section 12-Scope of-
Release on probation after conviction-Does not obliterate the stigma of 
conviction-"Shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a 
conviction of an offence under such law"-Refer to disqualification by 
some law other than the Probation of Offenders Act. 
Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949: Section JO(n)-Const-
able-Acting prejudicial to good order and discipline-Conviction-
Release on probation-DLimissal from service-Held not entitled to 
reinstatement-Penalty of 'dismissal' altered into 'removal from service'. 
The respondent, a constable, convicted under section lO(n) of the 
Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 but released on probation under 
section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, was dismissed from 
service. He challenged his dismissal before the High Court which 
ordered his reinstatement holding that there was no disqualification for 
E 
him to continue in service, for section 12 of the Probation of Offenders 
Act, 1958 has the effect of removing the disqualification attaching to his 
conviction. Hence this appeal by the Union of India. 
F 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, 
this Court, 
'1. 
HELD: 1. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 only 
directs that the offender 'shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attach-
ing to a conviction of an offence under such law'. Such law in the 
context is the other law providing for disqualification on account of 
conviction e.g. if a law provides for disqualification of a person for 
G 
being appointed in any office or for seeking election to any authority or 
;: 
body in vie'¥ of his conviction, that disqualification by virtue of section >--
12 stands removed. But that is not the same thing to state that the 
person who has been dismissed from service in view of his conviction is 
entitled to reinstatement upon getting the benefit of probation of good 
conduct. Section 12 does not preclude the department from taking 
H 
action for misconduct leading to the offence or to his conviction theron 
760 
U.O.J. v. BAKSHI RAM 
761 
as per law. It was not intended to exonerate the person from depart-
mental punishment. [766B-C; 765E] 
· R. Kumaraswami Aiyer v. The Commissioner, Municipal Council 
Tiruvannamalai and Anr., [1957] Cr. LJ 255; Embaru (P) v. Chairman 
Madras Port Trust, [1963] 1 LLJ 49 Mad; A. Satyanarayana Murthy v. 
Zonal Manager L.I.C., AIR 1969 A.P. 371; Prem Kumar v. Union of 
India & Ors., [1971] Lab. & Ind. Cases 823; Om Prakash v. The 
Director Postal Services & Ors., [1971] I SLR 648 and Director of 
Postal Services & Anr. v. Daya Nand, [1972] SLR 325, approved. 
The Div[. Personnel Officer Southern Railway & Anr. v. T. R. 
Challappan, [1975] 2 SLR 587, followed. 
2. In criminal trial the conviction is one thing and sentence is 
another. The departmental punishment for misconduct is yet. a third 
one. The Court while invoking the provisions of section 3 or 4 of the Act 
does not deal with the conviction; it only deals with the sentence which 
A 
B 
c 
the offender has to undergo. Instead of sentencing the offender, the 
D 
Court releases him on probation of good conduct. The conviction, how-
ever, remains untouched and the stigma of conviction is not obliterated. 
In the departmental proceedings the delinquent could be dismissed or 
removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to 
his conviction on a criminal charge. Therefore the question of respon-
dent's restatement into service does not arise. However, the penalty of 
E 
dismissal from service is altered into removal from service. [765C-D, F; 766E] 
Tulsi Ram Patel v. Union of India, [1985] Suppl. 2 SCR 131 and 
Trikha Ram v. V.K. Seth & Anr., [!987] Suppl. SCC 39, followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1312 
of 1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6. 7. 1988 of the Ra jasthan 
High Court in D.B. Civil W.P. No. 71/77. 
F 
S. Hegde, Additional Solicitor General, A. Subba Rao for 
G 
----" 
C.V.S. Rao for the Appellants. 
S.C. Birla for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
A 
B 
762 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] I S.C.R. 
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. Special leave granted. 
Bakshi Ram respondent was a constable in the Central Reserve 
Police Force at Devli in Rajasthan. On 17th March 1971 at ab
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.