AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—In this writ petition petition seeks to quash the order of the second respondent dated 14.7.2005 and to direct
the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the service with back salary.
The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that the petitioner was
working as a Noon Meal Organizer at C.S.I. Primary School at Innam Reddiapatti in Virdhunagar Panchayat Union since 1983 and on 18.3.2004
a criminal case was registered against him for the offence punishable u/s 324 IPC by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sulakarai Police Station in crime
No. 61 of 2004. The allegation is that the petitioner threw a stone on his sister''s daughter and caused simple injuries on her stomach and head.
Registration of the said case was intimated to the Headmaster of the School, pursuant to which the second respondent suspended the petitioner on
19.3.2004, till the pendency of the criminal case. The criminal case in C.C. No. 63 of 2004 was tried by the Judicial Magistrate II, Virdhunagar
and the petitioner was released on probation of good conduct u/s 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act on 21.2.2005 on condition to be on
probation for one year. After disposal of the criminal case, the second respondent removed the petitioner from service by order dated 14.7.2005
stating that the petitioner admitted the offence and found guilty by the Criminal Court. According to the petitioner, no enquiry was conducted by
the second respondent and releasing of a person u/s 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, will not be a disqualification for continuance in public
employment as stated in Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. On the said ground the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash
the order of termination.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that since Section 12 clearly states that releasing of an accused under the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958, is not a disqualification for continuance in the job, the second respondent is not justified in passing the impugned order terminating the
petitioner''s service based on the criminal Court judgment dated 21.2.2005.
Similar issue arose before this Court in the decision reported in P. Subramanian Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruchirapalli
Region, Tiruchirapalli and another, and a learned single Judge of this Court, taking note of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders, Act, 1958
held that the termination order passed based on the basis of the criminal Court order, releasing a person under the Probation of Offenders Act, is
bad. The learned Judge in the said decision followed the Supreme Court decisions reported in:
(a) The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway and Another Vs. T.R. Chellappan and Others, (para 13);
(b) Union of India and others Vs. Bakshi Ram, (para 10);
(c) Union of India and Another Vs. Tulsiram Patel and Others, ;
(d) Additional D.I.G. of Police, Hyderabad v. P.R.K. Mohan, (1997) 11 SCC 571 ;
(e) 1986 LW (Cri) 58 (Gopalan, In re);
(f) 1989 Cri. L.J 1161 (State by Asst. Inspector of Labour, Nagarcoil v. S. Radhakrishnan), etc.,
In the above decision it is clearly held that Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 specifically states that releasing of a person
under the Probation of Offenders Act will not be a bar for continuance in the public employment. The second respondent having not framed any
charge or initiated disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, is not justified in terminating the petitioner from service merely on the ground that
the petitioner was released under the Probation of Offenders Act,1958.
I have also considered a similar issue in W.P. No. 33712 of 2005 (P. Murugan v. Director General of Police, Chennai-4), wherein the selection
of the petitioner therein to the post of Police Constable was denied and by order dated 26.4.2006 I set aside the impugned order holding that
release of a person u/s 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act will not be a bar for getting Government appointment.
Following the above cited judgments, I hold that the impugned order dated 14.7.2005 is unsustainable and consequently the writ petition is
allowed as prayed for. This order shall be implemented within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.