ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. Despite service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to enter an appearance. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The only ground on which the decision of the learned Single Judge came to be altered by the Division Bench is based on the interpretation of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which reads as under :

"12. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, 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 :"

The Division Bench of the High Court held that this provision has overriding effect over the provisions of any other law and, therefore, the order of dismissal was liable to be quashed on that ground alone.

3. The impugned order was passed on the basis of Section 12 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 which inter alia provided that every person sentenced under this Act to imprisonment may be dismissed from the Force, and shall further be liable to forfeiture of pay, allowance and any other moneys due to him, as well as of any medals and decorations received by him. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that since the order of imprisonment had been substituted by the order of probation this provision could not be invoked. At the same time, he observed that it would not preclude the competent authorities from taking appropriate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law.

4. It is settled law that Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 does not preclude the department from taking action for misconduct leading to the offence or to his conviction thereon as per law. The section was not intended to exonerate the person from departmental punishment. It was clarified; the section only directed that the offender shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. Such law in the context is other law providing for disqualification on account of conviction. This Court, therefore, held that merely because a sentence of imprisonment has been substituted by an order passed under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the effect of the conviction is not obliterated altogether and it would be open to the authorities to take departmental proceedings on the basis thereof (see Union of India v. Bakshi Ram). Therefore, the observation of the appellate court on the interpretation of Section 12 is not correct.

5. But the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench while setting aside the order of punishment observed that the authorities department will not be precluded from taking appropriate disciplinary action against the delinquent. Since we have clarified the law on the subject, the only thing left for the authorities would be to consider the effect of the a modification in the order of sentence from imprisonment to probation and pass a fresh order whether under Section 12 of the CRPF Act or dehors that provision. We do not think it necessary to interfere as we have indicated the scope of the fresh order to be passed by the authorities. We dispose of this appeal accordingly with no order as to costs.