Back
1971 Supreme(P&H) 210
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.S.Narula, Bal Raj Tuli and Man Mohan Singh Gujral JJ.
Om Prakash
Versus
Director Postal Services (Posts And Telegraphs Department),
Civil Writ No. 2192 of 1970,
Decided On : DECEMBER 7, 1971
Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 does not prohibit the dismissal from service of a Government servant who has been dealt with under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act.
Headnote:
PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT, 1958 - SECTION 12 - CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1965 - RULE 19 - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - CONVICTION ON CRIMINAL CHARGE - DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a postman, was convicted under Sections 420/511 and 465/471 of the Indian Penal Code for submitting false medical reimbursement claims. Instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, the Magistrate released him on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Subsequently, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Postmaster, Amritsar, under Rule 19(i) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, on the ground of his conviction. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal, contending that it violated Article 311(1) of the Constitution and that Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act prohibited his dismissal from service.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner's dismissal from service was not violative of Article 311(1) of the Constitution as the petitioner was appointed and dismissed by the same authority, namely, the Postmaster, Amritsar. The Court further held that Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act did not prohibit the petitioner's dismissal from service as it merely removed any disqualification attaching to a conviction of an offence under any law other than the Act. The Court also held that departmental punishment was not a necessary and automatic consequence of conviction on a criminal charge and that the competent disciplinary authority had to consider all the circumstances of the case before imposing any penalty on the Government Servant. The Court further held that the principles of natural justice were not applicable in the present case as the petitioner had already had full opportunity to defend himself in the Criminal Court. Finally, the Court held that the order of dismissal was bad as it was passed solely on the basis of the petitioner's conviction without considering the conduct which led to the conviction.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's dismissal from service violated Article 311(1) of the Constitution? 2. Whether Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act prohibited the petitioner's dismissal from service? 3. Whether departmental punishment was a necessary and automatic consequence of conviction on a criminal charge? 4. Whether the principles of natural justice were applicable in the present case? 5. Whether the order of dismissal was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 does not prohibit the dismissal from service of a Government servant who has been dealt with under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act. 2. Departmental punishment is not a necessary and automatic consequence of conviction on a criminal charge. The competent disciplinary authority has to consider all the circumstances of the case before imposing any penalty on the Government Servant. 3. The principles of natural justice are not applicable in a case where a Government servant has been convicted on a criminal charge and has been dealt with under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 4. An order of dismissal from service passed solely on the basis of a Government servant's conviction without considering the conduct which led to the conviction is bad.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the order of dismissal from service. However, the Court clarified that nothing in its judgment absolved the petitioner of his liability, if any, under the relevant service rules for being dealt with departmentally for his conduct which led to his conviction.
R.S.Narula, J.
1. This writ petition for quashing the order of the Second respondent (the postmaster, Amritsar) dated September, 15, 1969, whereby the Petitioners was dismissed from service consequent upon his conviction under Section 420/511, and 465/471 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the submission by him of false medical reimbursement claims, was admitted by the Motion Bench (myself and Suri J.) on July 16, 1970 to a Full Bench in view of the doubt entertained by the Bench about the correctness of the view expressed by a learned Single Judge of this Court (P. D. Sharma J.), in Kehar Singh V/s. Regional Employment Officer, Chandigarh, 1967 Serv LR 527 (also reported in 1967-69 Punj L.R. 331), wherein it has been held that Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) prohibits the removal from service of a Government servant who after conviction has been dealt with under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act, as conviction of such a Government servant cannot be taken into consideration for removing him from service.
2. The facts which have led to the filing of his petition are neither complicated not disputed. The petitioner who was originally a temporary packer in the Postal Department with effect from July 1948 (Annexure R-1) was appointed by respondent No.2 as temporary Postman vide order dated September 12, 1950 (Annexure-R.2). He took charge of that post on September 15, 1950, vide his charge report Annexure R-3. During the course of his employment as a Postman, he was convicted by a Judgment of the Criminal Court, dated March 20, 1969 (Annexure A to the petition) for the commission of offences referred to in the opening sentence of this judgment on the finding that he had knowingly used a forged cash memo for claiming medical reimbursement and had tried to cheat the Government in that manner. Instead of sentencing the petitioner to any term of imprisonment, the Magistrate released him on probation under Section 4 of the Act on his entering into a bond of Rs. 1000/-undertaking to appear and receive the sentence of imprisonment when called upon to do so during the period of six months from the date of the judgment. Subsequent to his conviction, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the order of his appointing authority (who is Respondent No. 2, the Postmaster, Amritsar), dated September 15, 1969 (Annexure B). The said order reads:-
-
"Whereas Shri Om Prakash son of Shri Charanjit Rai, Postman No. 37, Amritsar H.O. (under suspension) was convicted on criminal charges under Ss. 120-B, 420/511, 467, 468 and 471/109 Indian Penal Code in the court case No. 153/67 (SPE Ambala F. I. R. No. 44/66) by the Court of Shri S. K. Jain, Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st class Punjab, Patiala on March 20, 1969 in connection with submission of false medical reimbursement claims by him; 1. the undersigned, now, therefore, dismiss Shri Om Prakash son of Shri Charanjit Rai Postman, Amritsar H.O. from Government Service with effect from September 16, 1969, forenoon".
The validity and legality of the above quoted order has been assailed in this petition filed on July 15, 1970, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
3. The argument relating to the order of dismissal being violative of Art. 311(1) of the Constitution has not even been touched by the counsel at the hearing of the petition for the obvious reason that the Petitioner was appointed as well as dismissed by the same authority, namely, the Postmaster, Amritsar. Mr. Harbans Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has put in the forefront the argument that Section 12 of the Act prohibits the dismissal of the petitioner from service on account of his conduct which has led to his conviction as the petitioner has been dealt with under Section 4. The provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 12 of the Act may be noticed at this stage in order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Those provisions ar
