Judgment

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:- Special leave granted.

2. Bakshi Ram respondent was a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force at Devly in Rajasthan. On 17th March, 1971 at about 8.45 p.m. he along with another constable forced entry into the room of Garib Das the constable of the CRP Group Centre band platoon. Garib Das was then not present in the room. His wife Savitri Devi who was .inside tried to prevent their entry, but in vain. Both the constables caught hold of her and misbehaved with her.

3. The respondent was tried for an offence under S. 10(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. S. 10 of the Act sets out less heinous offences and S. 10(1) refers to any act or omission which, though not specified in the Act, is prejudiciable to good order and discipline. On the evidence adduced in the case he was found guilty of the charge and by judgment dated 5 March, 1971 he was sentenced to four months R.I. by the Magistrate Ist Class and Commandant Group Centre, CRPF, Deoli (Rajasthan), He was lodged in the Civil Jail, Jaipur to undergo the sentence.

4. In view of his conviction and sentence, the Department by way of disciplinary action dismissed him from service. This action was taken when his appeal against the conviction and sentence was pending before the Sessions Judge. The learned Judge by judgment dated 22 September 1971 upheld the conviction but relased him under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ("the Act). Apparently he was released under S. 4 of the Act upon furnishing bonds to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of six months. The respondent complied with those conditions. After expiry of the period of good conduct, he moved the High Court with Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging his dismissal from service. The High Court relying upon S. 12 of the Act has set aside the dismissal and directed that he should be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits. The High Court has expressed the view that the sole reason for dismissal of the respondent was his conviction under S. 10(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act but in view of S. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, there was no disqualification for him to continue in service. This is how the High Court observed:

"The clear language of S. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 which provides that a person dealt with under the provisions of S. 3 or S. 4 of the Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction under any law, notwithstanding anything contained in any othen law. This provision has the effect of removing disqualification attaching to the petitioners conviction under S. 10(n) of the CRPF Act. S. 12 of the probation of Offenders Act dealing specifically with this situation clearly provides that the provisions therein is notwithstanding anything contained in any other law. Hence, effect has to be given to the same". .

5. The judgment of the High Court has been challenged in this appeal.

6. Since the result of the appeal turns on the scope and meaning of S. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, it is necessary to set out the Section. S. 12 is in these terms:

"12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of S. 3 or Section 4 shall not suffer disqualification if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law.

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under S. 4, is subsequently sentenced for the original offence."

7. Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 provides power to the Court to release certain offenders after admonition. S. 4 provides power to the Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct. Under the disposition made by the Court under S. 4 the sentence is suspended during the period of probation and the offender is released on his enter