IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Conviction of an employee in an offence permits the disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee or to take appropriate steps for his dismissal/removal only on the basis of his conviction. The word ‘Disqualification’ contained in Section 12 of Benefit of Probation Act, 1958 refers to a disqualification provided in other Statutes, and the employee cannot claim a right to continue in service merely on the ground that he had been given the benefit of probation under the Act, 1958.
2. Conviction of a person in a crime involving moral turpitude impeaches his credibility as he has been found to have indulged in shameful, wicked, and base activities.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 10.09.2007 passed by High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ Petition 14014 of 2007, by which the High Court had dismissed the writ petition for quashing the award dated 3rd January, 2007, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II at Chandigarh (hereinafter called as, “Tribunal”), by which the Tribunal had upheld the dismissal of the appellant from service on the ground of conviction of the appellant in criminal case involving moral turpitude.

3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the present case are that the appellant was appointed as a Peon in the respondent-Bank, Kaithal Branch, on 01.12.1971 and stood confirmed on the said post vide order dated 28.12.1977. The appellant was handed over cash of Rs.5000/-, to deposit the same as dues for the Telephone Bill in the Post Office. However, it was not deposited by the appellant, therefore, the bank lodged FIR No. 171 under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called “lPC”) against the appellant, on 27.04.1982, in Police Station, City Kaithal. Appellant was tried for the said offence. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted by the competent Criminal Court vide Judgment and Order dated 28.01.1988. The respondent-Bank issued a Show Cause Notice dated 01.03.1988 to the appellant, proposing dismissal from service and asked the appellant to show cause within a period of seven days. The appellant submitted the reply dated 08.03.1988. However, the respondent-Bank dismissed the appellant from service vide order dated 09.03.1988.

4. Being aggrieved, the appellant raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the matter was referred to the Tribunal. In the meanwhile, the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of conviction was decided by the appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 29.5.1989. The appellate Court maintained the conviction, but granted him the benefit of probation under The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter called as, “Act 1958) and released the appellant on probation. The Tribunal made the award dated 03.01.2007, rejecting the claim of the appellant and holding his dismissal from service to be justified and in accordance with law.

5. Being aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said award of the Tribunal by filing the writ petition No. 14014 of 2007, before the High Court. His petition also stood dismissed vide impugned Judgment and order dated 10.09.2007. Hence, this appeal.

6. Sh. Pradeep Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that once the appellant had been granted the benefit of the Act, 1958, the respondent-Bank ought to have considered his case for reinstatement, as the benefit granted by the appellate Court under the provisions of Act, 1958, had taken away “disqualification” by virtue of Section 12 of the Act, 1958. The appeal deserves to be allowed and the Judgment and Order of the High Court as well as the Award of the Tribunal are liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra, Sh. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank, has vehemently opposed the appeal contending that grant of benefit under the Act, 1958 takes away only the punishment (sentence) and not the factum of conviction, therefore, in case, an employee of the Bank stands convicted in an offence involving moral turpitude, it is permissible for the respondent-Bank to remove him from service. Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

8. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 409 IPC after recording the finding of fact that the appellant had not deposited the telephone bill in spite of receiving a sum of Rs. 5000/- for that purpose on 26.04.1982 and