THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.744 of 2006 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 23.03.2006, passed by the learned Judge of this Court in W.P.No.5705 of 2006, this writ appeal is filed by the appellant. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant while working as a Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India, was removed from service on the ground that he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in a criminal case. Challenging the order of removal, the Memorial as per Regulation 49 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 as well as W.P.No.7889 of 1998 preferred by the appellant was negatived, whereas in Crl.A.No.293 of 1995 filed by him, this Court released him under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act (for short ‘the Act’). The appeal being W.A.No.1181 of 1998 filed by the appellant against the dismissal of W.P.No.7889 of 1998 was dismissed by this Court on 29.07.1998. While so, the appellant filed W.P.No.5705 of 2006 for non-disposal of representation dated 10.12.2005, filed for review of the Memorial. Through the impugned order, the learned Judge dismissed the same. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that when once this Court released the appellant under Section 4 of the Act, he is not an offender at all and as such, the order of removal from service as confirmed by the appellate authorities is nonest in the eye of law and the learned Judge ought to have considered the same. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER SOUTHERN RAILWAY v. T. R. CHALLAPPAN[1] wherein it was held as under: “The words ‘attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law’ in Section 12 refer to two contingencies; (i) that there must be a disqualification resulting from a conviction; and (ii) that such disqualification must be provided by some law other than the Probation of Offenders Act. The Penal Code does not contain any such disqualification. Therefore, it cannot be said that Section 12 of the Act contemplates an automatic disqualification attaching to a conviction and obliteration of the criminal misconduct of the accused. Thus the conviction of a delinquent employee simplicitor without anything more will not result in his automatic dismissal or removal from service. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the appellant was placed under suspension on 17.08.1993 as he was in judicial custody beyond 48 hours. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Regulation Nos.36 and 39 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, which read as under: 36.(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered in that behalf (vide Schedule IV) may place an employee under suspension- (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. Period exceeding 48 hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention, by an order of the appointing authority, and shall remain under suspension till further orders. 39 (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of other regulations, (any one or more of) the following penalties for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed by the disciplinary authority specified in Schedule-I) on an employee who commits a breach of regulations of the Corporation, or who display negligence, inefficiency or indolence or who knowingly does anything detrimental to the interest of the Corporation, or conflicting with the instructions or who commits a breach of discipline, or is guilty of any other act prejudicial to good conduct- (a) Censure; (b) Withholding of one or more increments either permanently or for a specified period; (c) recovery from pay or such other amount as may be due to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by negligence or breach of order; (d) reduction to a lower service, or post, or to a lower time scale, or to a lower stage in a time-scale; (e) compulsory retirement; (f) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment; (g) dismissal. Learned counsel further contended that when this Court confirmed the order of removal, again filing the writ petition on the same cause based on a representation is not valid. 6. Challenging the order of removal dated 22.07.1996, the appellant filed a Memorial before the first respondent and also W.P.No.7889 of 1998 before this Court. By relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. BAKSHIRAM[2] the first respondent dismissed the Memorial on 15.01.1998, whereas this Court also dismissed the said writ petition on 13.03.1998. In the decision cited above, the Apex Court held that Section 12 of the Act does not preclude the department from taking action for misconduct leading to the offence or to the conviction thereon as per law. In this case, the writ appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by this Court on 29.07.1998. For reviewing the Memoral, the appellant filed a representation on 10.12.2005, which is impugned in W.P.No.5705 of 2006. When once the learned single Judge of this Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court held that the factum of the appellant being released under Section 4 of the Act is of no consequence, the question of reviewing the same by the first respondent does not arise. However, as per Regulation No.39(f) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, removal from the service shall not be a disqualification for future employment of the appellant. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:27.09.2011 sj [1] AIT 1975 SC 2216(1) [2] AIR 1990 SC 987