Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, does not preclude disciplinary proceedings against an employee for conduct leading to a criminal conviction, as it only prohibits automatic disqualification flowing from a conviction and does not obliterate the misconduct of the accused.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition seeking the quashing of the order of the Zonal manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, 5-5-1966, dismissing the petitioner on a writ of certiorari.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant to this petition are these: The petitioner was a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, While working as such in Visakhapatnam and Srikakulam Districts, the authorities of the Life Insurance Corporation referred cases of alleged misappropriation of the insurance moneys collected from the policy-holders by the petitioner to the Special Police Establishment. The said authorities filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner in the Court of the Fourth City Magistrate, Hyderabad, for alleged misappropriation of Rs. 58 collected by the petitioner from one T. Jagnnayakulu and Chowdary Krishnamurty. The Magistrate tried the case against him as S. P. E. No. 5 of 1965 and found him guilty under Section 409, I. P. C. , but instead of sentencing him, directed that he be released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Central Act No. XX of 1958 ). After the conviction and release as aforesaid under the provisions was dismissed from the service of the Life Insurance Corporation of India by the order of the Zonal Manager which is now impugned.

( 3 ) THE main challenge to the order before us is that by reason of Section 12 of the probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the petitioner cannot be dismissed as that section specifically enacts that a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under Section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law.

( 4 ) THE Life Insurance Corporation by their counter pleaded that the authorities dismissed the petitioner under Regulation 39 (4) of the Life insurance of India, Staff Regulations 1960. These Regulations, it is said, were made under Section 49 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act 1956 ( Central Act XXXI of 1956) and have the force of law.

( 5 ) NOW three questions arise for our consideration in this matter: (1) Whether the Life Insurance Corporation is precluded form taking appropriate action against an employee under Regulation 39 (4) of the Staff Regulation, 1960, by reason of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. (2) If the authorities are not so precluded, whether in fact action has been taken in this case under the said Regulation? (3) Whether the impugned order suffers from any infirmity?

( 6 ) WE would now appropriately peruse Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and regulation 39 of the Staff Regulations, 1960, relevant in this context.

( 7 ) SECTION 12 is in these terms:"notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under provisions of Section 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 Section 4, is subsequently sentenced for the original offence. "

( 8 ) THERE is no controversy before us that the petitioner was dealt with under the provisions of Section 4 and for that reason he would not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to his conviction under Section 409 I. P. C. by reason of section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

( 9 ) NOW we may read Regulation 39 in so far as it is relevant: Regulation 39 (1) sets out the penalties (a) to (g) which may be imposed for good and sufficient reasons. Regulation 39 (1) (g) mentions dismissal as one of the penalties. Sub-regn. (2) sets out the procedure of communicating the charge or charges to the delinquent official and giving him a reasonable opportunity of defending himself. Sub-regulation (3) says that the disciplinary authority may enquire or may appoint a Boarboard of Enquiry or an Enquiry Officer. Sub-regulation (4), which