Grant of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act removes disqualification for appointment to government service, especially for non-serious offences not involving moral turpitude.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

1. The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the quashing of an order dated 18th January 2017 issued by the Presiding Officer, Kritrim Ang Kendra (Artificial Limb Centre 'ALC') informing the Petitioner that his candidature for the post of Limb Maker Carpenter (ST) at ALC, Pune [functioning under the Armed Forces Medical Services ('AFMS')] has been cancelled in view of the verification report received from the police regarding the conviction of the Petitioner for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 447 and 324/34 IPC. The Petitioner also seeks a direction to the Director General of the AFMS to issue him an appointment letter for the aforementioned post.

2. The background facts are that the Petitioner applied under ST category for the above post pursuant to an advertisement issued in the Employment News 28 th May 2016 to 3rd June 2016. On 4th September 2016, he cleared the written exam. He later cleared the trade test. He was also found fit in the medical examination held on 18th November 2016.

3. When the Petitioner did not receive an appointment letter, he filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In response thereto, a letter dated 18th January 2017 was sent to him by Respondent No.2 informing him that during police verification he was found to have been convicted for the aforementioned offences and, therefore, his candidature stood cancelled. Aggrieved by the said letter, the present petition was filed.

4. The Petitioner has averred in the petition that FIR No.21 of 2013 had been registered at Police Station Sadar Hind on on 1st December 2016 against the Petitioner and his brother Kaptan Singh arising out from a land dispute between the family members of the Petitioner and one Tej Singh. In fact, there were cross-cases filed by one party against the other. During the course of the trial, the matters were referred to the Lok Adalat and both parties accepted their respective guilt before the Trial Court.

5. By a judgment dated 1st December 2016 in Criminal Case No.129 of 2013 arising out of the aforementioned FIR 21 of 2013, the Trial Court while convicting the Petitioner and his brother for the aforementioned offences gave them the benefit of probation by applying Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ('POA') and directing them to furnish a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- each apart from paying costs of Rs.2,200/-. The trial Court imposed a condition that neither accused would commit any offence for a period of two years thereafter and subject thereto shall get the benefit of Section 12 of the POA. The two-year period has since elapsed and in the interregnum there has been no criminal case involving the Petitioner.

6. In response to the notice issued in the present petition, the Respondents have filed a counter affidavit inter alia taking the plea that release of the Petitioner under Section 4 of the POA 'would not obliterate the conduct/act which constituted the offence, for which he has already been convicted.' The stand is that Section 12 POA 'would not take away the effect of conviction for the purposes of employment in Government service.'

7. The above stand of the Respondents is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. Bakshi Ram, (1990) 2 SCC 426 . That was a decision in an appeal from the decision of the Rajasthan High Court which had held that the release on probation had the effect of removal of disqualification attaching to the employee's conviction under Section 10 (n) of the CRPF Act. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court and observed that Section 12 POA did not take away the effect of the conviction. Clearly the context of that case was the removal of a person who had already been employed under CRPF Act.

8. The said ruling was referred to and relied upon by this Court in Satraj Singh v. Union of India, (2007) 9 AD(Del) 241 holding that the conviction of an accused cannot be 'washed out at all because that is the sine