- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 221 of 1998 NATHURAM MAGARDA V/S STATE & ANR Mr. SANJEET PUROHIT, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. BL BHATI, AGA, for the respondent Date of Order : 30.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- By this appeal, the appellants seek to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.12.97, dismissing the appellant's writ petition. The petitioner filed the writ petition, seeking to challenge Annex.8 and Annex.3, and praying for reinstatement. Vide Annex.3, dated 26.12.83, the petitioner was dismissed from service, as the petitioner had been convicted for the offence under Section 409 IPC, and it was considered, that the conduct of the petitioner, which led to his conviction is such, as to render his further retention in the public service undesirable. Against the conviction, the petitioner filed appeal, which was decided on 25.3.91, thereby while maintaining conviction, the substantive sentence was - 2 - reduced to 3 months. Then the petitioner filed revision in this court, being S.B.Cr.Rev.No.81/91, which was decided on 10.5.91, whereby the conviction of the petitioner was upheld, however taking into consideration the fact, that the petitioner had already remained in custody for 8 days during trial, and is in custody since 25.3.91, and the fact that the incident relates to the period 1976 to 1979, while now it is the year 1991, his detention in imprisonment will provide a ground for termination of his services, and in this inflationary stage, his family members will suffer, and therefore, he was released on probation. After this order, the petitioner submitted representation, to the effect, that since he has been released on probation, he should be reinstated in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, that prayer was turned down vide Annex.8. The learned Single Judge found, that since the petitioner was terminated on account of conviction, no notice was required to be given, and now since conviction has become final, no direction can be given for reinstatement. Learned counsel for the appellant again pressed into service the provisions of Section 12, and the observation made by the Revisional Court in Cr. Rev. - 3 - No.81/91, to the effect, that if probation is not given, it will provide a ground for termination of his service, and therefore, he should be reinstated. In our view, Section 12 doesn't provide, that in every case, where the conviction is maintained, and probation is given, the employee cannot be removed, and where he has been removed, he should be reinstated. Here the petitioner has been convicted for the offence of moral turpitude, being one under Section 409 and 468 IPC, and that conviction has been maintained by the Courts right upto this Court. In our view, that is sufficient to provide ground to terminate the services of the petitioner. So far as the probation is concerned, and the observation made by this Court in Revisional Order is concerned, a look at the page 2 of the judgment, which has been produced as Annex.6, shows, that the submission was made before this Court, that the accused is continuing in government service, and if he is not released on probation, he will be deprived from the government service. It appears, that considering this submission, the observation was made, while the submission, to the knowledge of the petitioner, was wrong, inasmuch as, he has already been terminated vide Annex.3, way-back in the year 1983. In our view, to repeat, Section 12 doesn't provide, that where the person has already been terminated, he should be - 4 - reinstated, if after 10 years he has been released on probation. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal thus, has no force, and is dismissed. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/