CWP No.19823 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19823 of 2008 Date of decision: 15th December, 2009 Daya Wati ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Ms. Baljit Mann, Advocate for the etitioner. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. PERMOD KOHLI, J.(Oral) The husband of the petitioner Shish Ram was working as S.S.Master, in the Education Department, Haryana. He was implicated in FIR No.94 dated 13.06.1986, for an offence under Sections 408 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar, Ballabgarh. On trial, vide judgment and order dated 26.03.1993, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year and six months rigorous imprisonment along with fine. An appeal preferred by him was dismissed vide judgment dated 16.01.1999, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(VII), Faridabad. The deceased husband of the petitioner had preferred revision petition in Criminal Misc. No. M-100 of 1999, before this CWP No.19823 of 2008 2 Court. During the pendency of the revision petition, Shish Ram died on 03.06.2006. After his death, this Court while disposing of the revision petition, vide order dated 28.11.2007, while maintaining the conviction and sentence awarded, ordered to release him on probation to lessen the sufferance of his family. The deceased husband of the petitioner on his conviction in the criminal case was dismissed from service vide order dated 16.07.1999(Annexure P-1). The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the quashment of the order of dismissal of the deceased husband on account of the order passed by this court in revision petition, holding that the deceased be deemed to have been released on probation. I have heard counsel for the parties, only question that needs to be considered is whether, the release on probation obliterated stigma of conviction and the employee dismissed on account of criminal offence is entitled to be reinstated. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1990 (2) S.C.C 426 in “Union of India and others v. Bakshi Ram” considering the aforesaid question and relying upon a number of judgments held as under:- “10. In criminal trial the conviction is one thing and sentence is another. The departmental punishment for misconduct is yet a third one. The Court while invoking the provisions of Section 3 of 4 of the Act does not deal with the conviction; it only deals with the sentence which the offender has to undergo. Instead of sentencing the offender, the Court released him on probation of good conduct. The conviction CWP No.19823 of 2008 3 however, remains untouched and the stigma of conviction is not obliterated. In the departmental proceedings the delinquent could be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; (See Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution and Tulsiram Patel case:[1995] Supp. 2 SCR 131 at 282). 11. Section 12 of the Act does not preclude the department from taking action for misconduct leading to the offence or to his conviction thereon as per law. The section was not intended to exonerate the person from department punishment. The question of reinstatement into service from which he was removed in view of his conviction does not therefore, arise. That seems obvious from the terminology of Section. On this aspect, the High Court speak with one voice. The Madras High Court in R. Kumaraswami Aiyer v. The Commissioner, Municipal Council Tiruvannamalai and Anr., [1957] Crl.L..J. 225 Vol. 58 and Embaru (P) v. Chairman Madras Port Trust, [1963] 1 LLJ 59 Mad., the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A. Satyanarayana Murthy v. Zonal Manager, L.I.C., AIR 1969 AP 371, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Prem Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., [1971] Lab & Ind. Caes 823, the CWP No.19823 of 2008 4 Punjab & Haryana High Court in Circle, Ambala and Ors., [1971] 1 SLR 643. The Delhi High Court in Director of Postal Services and Anr. v. Daya Nand, [1972] SLR 325 have expressed the same view. This view of the High Courts in the aforesaid cases has been approved by this Court in T.R.Challappan's case[1975] 2 SLR 587.” In view of the settled legal position, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, no merit dismissed. [PERMOD KOHLI] JUDGE 15th December, 2009 Shivani Kaushik