The court ruled that a conviction will not disqualify a candidate for employment if dealt with under probation provisions, ensuring eligibility remains intact per Section 12 of the Act, 1958.

JUDGMENT

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.

CHALLENGE

1. This intra-court appeal instituted under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, lays challenge to the judgment and order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, W.P.(C) 218/2025, filed by the respondent, has been allowed and the order dated 09.12.2024 impugned in the writ petition passed by appellant no.2 – Airport Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as the „AAI‟) has been quashed.

2. The learned Single Judge has also directed the appellant – AAI to appoint the respondent on the post in question, namely, Junior Executive (Common Cadre). It may be noted at this juncture itself that the order dated 09.12.2024, which was under challenge before learned Single Judge was passed in compliance of an order dated 30.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 13711/2024, whereby the prayer of respondent no.1 to revive the offer of appointment of the post in question was rejected.

FACTS

3. Facts in this case are undisputed and lie in a narrow compass, which are as under:

3.1 Under an order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Illaqa Magistrate, Karnal, FIR No.431/2012 was registered at Police Station Butana, District Karnal, Haryana under Section 498A, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was made by the wife of the respondent. After investigation, the respondent was charged under Section 406, 498A and 506 of IPC and he faced trial in Criminal Case No.898/2013. On conclusion of trial, the respondent was held guilty and, accordingly, convicted for committing the offences under Section 498A and 406 of IPC vide judgment dated 04.09.2014. Accordingly, vide order dated 05.09.2014, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.500/- for commission of offence under Section 498A IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC.

3.2 The respondent challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence by filing an appeal, namely, Criminal Appeal No.129/2014. During pendency of this criminal appeal filed by the respondent against his conviction, the marriage of the respondent with his wife Ms. Rita Rani was dissolved by mutual consent vide order dated 19.09.2015 passed by the competent Court under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and, accordingly, a decree of divorce by mutual consent was passed.

3.3 The criminal appeal was disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal by means of the order dated 21.09.2015. It is noteworthy that the respondent did not press the appeal so far as the judgment of conviction is concerned, and accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court was upheld by the Appellate Court while passing the order dated 21.09.2015.

3.4 On the point of quantum of sentence, it was urged by the respondent before the Appellate Court that considering the facts of the case, he be released on probation of good conduct under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act, 1958‟). The learned Appellate Court considering various factors, including that the marriage between the respondent and the complainant, namely, his wife had already been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent and that the complainant-wife did not have any grievance against the respondent and that she had no objection, released the respondent on probation of good conduct.

3.5 The Appellate court found it to be a fit case for extending the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Act, 1958. The Appellate Court accordingly, having regard to all the aforesaid facts and also taking into consideration that the respondent was challaned as far back as in the year 2012 and since then he had been undergoing the strain of criminal prosecution, ordered release of the respondent on probation of good conduct for a period of six months. The respondent was required by