The immunity granted under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act does not automatically entitle the offender to reinstatement, as the Act only deals with the sentence and does not affect the conviction. The Act was not intended to exonerate the offender from departmental punishment.

JUDGMENT

Sameer Jain, J. - Present writ petition is filed against the order dated 15.02.2002 passed by respondent Assistant Engineer whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground of being convicted under Section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code on 12.12.2001.

2. The present writ petition is filed with limited prayers which reads as follows:-

"i) the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service keeping the fact into consideration that the benefit of section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act was extended in favour of the petitioner by this Hon'ble Court and except the said criminal case neither any enquiry nor any other proceedings is pending against the petitioner;

ii) any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was a permanent and substantive employee of respondents-company JVVNL. After carrying out approximately 22 years of service, on 15.02.2002, he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 12.12.2001 on account of his conviction on a criminal charge under Section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code in the light of order of learned trial Court dated 12.12.2001.

4. Against the order of trial Court dated 12.12.2001 in Session Case No.53/2001, S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1064/2001 titled as Dhanraj & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan was filed whereby vide judgment dated 27.07.2015, the petitioner was granted benefit under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1958') and following order was passed:-

"i) The appeal filed on behalf of accused appellants is partly allowed;

ii) The conviction of the accused appellants is altered from Section 307/34 and 324/34 IPC to 324/34 IPC.

iii) The accused appellant Gauri Shankar is given the benefit of Probation of offenders' Act and it is directed that he shall be released on probation under section 4 of the Probation of offenders Act for a period of one year, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) with one surety of the like amount before the trial court with the stipulation that he will appear before the Court concerned and receive the sentence awarded by the trial court as and when he is called upon to do so during the period of one year, and in the meantime he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour and will not commit any offence during the period of probation.

iv) The accused appellant Gouri Shankar is also extended the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders' Act, so that the impugned judgment will not affect his future in any way.

v) The bail bonds, as indicated above shall be furnished by appellant Gauri Shankar before the trial court within a period of three months from today.

vi) The accused appellant Gouri Shankar is on bail. His bail bonds will be cancelled by the trial court only after submitting the fresh bail bonds before the trial court within the aforesaid stipulated period of three months.

vii) So far as accused appellants Dhanraj and Radha Mohan are concerned, their conviction is maintained; and their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated above.

viii) The sentence of the accused appellants Dhanraj and Radha Mohan was suspended and they are on bail. They need not to surrender and their bail bonds stand cancelled. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated hereinabove."

5. It is the claim of the petitioner that once immunity under Section 12 of Act of 1958 is granted, he should be reinstated back in service and for that he has filed application dated 06.10.2015 and representation dated 26.04.2016, but the respondents did not considered either of them and it is in this background that the present writ petition was filed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the object of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958