Release On Probation In Criminal Case No Ground To Reduce Punishment In Departmental Proceedings : Supreme Court
Observing that release on probation does not wipe out the stigma of conviction, the Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court's decision that reduced a workman's punishment merely because he was granted the benefit of probation in criminal proceedings.
“…the High Court has 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.”, observed a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria.
The case concerned a workman who had been appointed by impersonating his brother and using a forged educational certificate. After a domestic inquiry, he was dismissed from service. The Labour Court substituted dismissal with a reduction of pay and an increment cut for three years. The High Court later modified the punishment to compulsory retirement, relying heavily on the fact that the workman had been granted the benefit of probation in criminal proceedings.
Challenging the High Court's decision, the Superintending Engineer appealed to the Supreme Court, relying on the case of Union of India Vs. Bakshi Ram (1990) 2 SCC 426 to contend that the release of an offender on probation does not obliterate the stigma of conviction, and as long as the conviction stands, the release of the respondent-workman on probation can never be taken as ground for substituting the punishment of dismissal from service for that of compulsory retirement.
Finding force in the Appellant's argument, the bench, reiterating the view laid down in Bakshi Ram, observed that “the High Court has 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 observation made by the High Court runs contrary to the law laid down in Bakshi Ram (Supra). Therefore, we set aside the observation of the High Court made in favour of the respondent-workman in para 14 of the impugned order and reiterate the law laid down in Bakshi Ram (Supra).”, the court added.
Considering the fact that the respondent-workman has died, the bench did not interfere with the modification of the punishment as made by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
Cause Title: THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER VERSUS THE LABOUR COURT MADURAI & ORS.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 78
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Balaji Subramanian, A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
For Respondent(s) None