KARAM SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

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.

          Union of India v. Bakshi Ram, [1990] 2 SCC 426, held applicable.
D         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.
E        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.
F         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.
                                                                                 B
       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
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 punishment of removal from
                                     or
    service. In that case, the penalty dismissal from service was altered into
    one of removal from service.
                                                        '
B          In Dy. Director of Collegiate Education (Admn.) v. S. Nagoor Meera,
    [1995] 3 SCC 377, another Bench of this Court has considered the con-
    troversy whether, when the accused is convicted by the Criminal Court, the
    disciplinary authority would still await the outcome of the case. This Court
    opined that once the accused was convicted, it forms basis for taking the
C   action under proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, which will,
    however, be subject to the ultimate result of the prosecution case. In the
    event the case ends in favour of the accused and honourably gets acquitted,
    then the authorities are required to reconsider the order of removal. That
    ratio also does not help the petitioner since he has already been convicted
    under Section 323 and it is a disqualification though he was released on
D   probation. Under these circumstances, the ratio in Bakshi Rani's case
    would be applicable to the facts in this case. In that view, the petitioner    '
    being a member of the disciplined police force, the authorities were
    justified in rejecting his reinstatement. However, we convert the penalty of
    dismissal into one of removal from service.
E          The SLP is accordingly dismissal.

    G.N.                                                    Petition dismissed.