The Supreme Court of India held that granting probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, does not erase the stigma of conviction. The Court said probation only substitutes the sentence, and the conviction remains, allowing departmental disciplinary action.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that releasing an offender on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, does not eliminate the stigma associated with a conviction.
The Apex Court clarified that while probation may substitute a sentence, the conviction and finding of guilt remain intact, enabling departments to take disciplinary actions for misconduct related to that conviction.
A Bench comprised of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria made this legal clarification while addressing an appeal from the Superintending Engineer of the Electricity Board.
Although the Court corrected an erroneous legal interpretation by the Madras High Court, it chose not to interfere with the relief granted to the respondent-worker, as he had passed away during the litigation.
The case originated from disciplinary proceedings against a worker who was initially hired as a contract laborer and later absorbed as a Helper on April 6, 1998, by the appellant-Electricity Board. Investigations revealed that the worker submitted a fraudulent educational certificate.
His real name was ‘Thiru. P. Palaniappan,’ but he had used his brother’s identity, ‘Thiru. P. Thangaiyan,’ to secure employment with his brother’s educational credentials. After a domestic inquiry into these allegations, the worker was dismissed from service on January 31, 2005.
Challenging his dismissal, the worker approached the Labour Court in Madurai, which, in its award dated May 11, 2009, reduced the punishment from dismissal to “a reduction of pay and increment cut for three years, affecting future increments.”
The Electricity Board contested this decision in a Writ Petition. The Single Judge of the High Court upheld the Labour Court’s award.
However, on further appeal, the Division Bench modified the punishment from an increment cut to compulsory retirement.
This modification was primarily based on the High Court’s belief that the worker’s release on probation in parallel criminal proceedings regarding forgery meant he should not be disqualified from service.
The appellant-Board approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had misinterpreted the law. Citing the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in Union of India Vs. Bakshi Ram (1990) 2 SCC 426, the counsel for the appellant contended that the release of an offender on probation “does not obliterate the stigma of conviction.”
They maintained that a standing conviction means that the worker’s release on probation should not justify substituting the dismissal punishment with compulsory retirement.
The counsel also acknowledged that, given the respondent-worker’s death, the Board did not wish to disturb the financial benefits accruing to his legal heirs. The primary aim of the appeal was to correct the High Court’s erroneous legal interpretation to prevent it from being set as a precedent in future cases.
No representatives appeared for the respondents despite being served notice.
The Supreme Court accepted the appellant’s argument, stating that the High Court’s view contradicted established law.
The Bench quoted extensively from Union of India Vs. Bakshi Ram, emphasizing that Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act does not eliminate the disqualification resulting from a conviction for departmental punishment.
The Court clarified,
“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 or 4 of the Act does not deal with the conviction; it only deals with the sentence which the offender has to undergo… The conviction however, remains untouched and the stigma of conviction is not obliterated.”
The Court added that 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.”
This provision was not intended to exempt a person from departmental penalties.
The Bench concluded that “the High Court had fell into error by observing that the conviction of the workman herein shall not be a disqualification and this conviction alone is not a ground to remove the workman from service.”
The Supreme Court set-aside the specific conclusion drawn by the High Court, which had stated that the conviction wouldn’t disqualify the worker because of probation.
The Court remarked,
“In our considered view, the observation made by the High Court runs contrary to the law laid down in Bakshi Ram (Supra)… and [we] reiterate the law laid down in Bakshi Ram (Supra).”
However, given the unusual circumstance of the worker’s passing, the Court opted not to reverse the modification of punishment decreed by the High Court.
The Bench ordered,
“Considering the fact that respondent-workman has died, we are not interfering with the modification of the punishment as made by the High Court in the impugned judgment,”
The Civil Appeal was concluded with a clarification of the legal position.
Case Title: The Superintending Engineer vs. The Labour Court Madurai & Ors.
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
