( 1. ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Premkumar challenging the order of his dismissal.

( 2. ) THE petitioner was working as a clerk in the Postal Department. While on duty he quarrelled with another employee of the department and tried to beat him with a shoe. A criminal case was thereupon started and he was convicted under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code as a result of which he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. On appeal his conviction was maintained but he was given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and released after admonition. Thereafter the disciplinary authority, taking action under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, dismissed him from service by order dated 6th June, 1969 which runs as follows: Whereas Shri P. R. Damle, Clerk, Sausar has been convicted on a criminal charge under Section 353, IPC. And whereas it is considered that the conduct of the said Shri P. R. Damle, Clerk, Sausar, which has led to his conviction, is such as renders his further retention in the public service undesirable, Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 19 (i) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 the undersigned hereby dismisses the said Shri P. R. Damle, Clerk, Sausar, at present under suspension, from service w. e. f. 6-6-69, the date of issue of this order. Against the above order the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed and further representation also was dismissed. Against the aforesaid orders he has filed the present writ petition.

( 3. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act and contended that the effect of the petitioners conviction is completely removed and he cannot be dismissed from service on the ground of conviction of an offence. Section 12 is quoted below:--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, 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.

( 4. ) WE have heard the learned Counsel at some length but we find ourselves unable to agree with the above contention. The relevant words of the section are shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. The words can only be read so as to remove the disqualification which under some law may attach to a person on account of his conviction. For instance, if a person is convicted of an offence, he is disqualified from standing for election to the Central or State Legislatures. But if such a person is given benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, then by virtue of Section 12 of that Act the disqualification for that purpose (standing for election) will stand removed. In the present case, however, both under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution the departmental action of dismissal from service is taken not because of any disqualification attaching on account of the petitioners conviction but because conviction is considered as sufficient proof of the conduct which resulted in his conviction and any further departmental enquiry into his conduct to find out facts is obviated. The proviso to Article 311 (2) reads: Provided that this clause shall not apply-- (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; * * * Thus, the ground of action is the conduct which leads to the conviction and not the conviction itself. Moreover, there is no question of disqualifi