BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 21/09/2006 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P(MD)No.7823 of 2006 J. Anandharaj ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Virdhunagar District, Virdhunagar. 2. The Commissioner, Virdhunagar Panchayat Union, Virdhunagar, Virdhunagar District. ... Respondents Prayer Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.A3/1244/04 dated 14.7.2005 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the service with back salary. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Michael Bharathi ^For Respondents ... Ms.V.Chellammal Special Government Pleader :ORDER
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.
2. 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 under
section 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 under section 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 under
section 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.
3. 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.
4. Similar issue arose before this Court in the decision reported in
2000 (IV) CTC 409 (P.Subramanian v. Joint Registrar of Co-Op. Societies,
Tiruchirapalli) 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) AIR 1975 SC 2216 (Divisional Personnel Officer v. T.R.Challapan) (para 13);
(b) AIR 1990 SC 987 (Union of India, v. Bakshi Ram) (para 10);
(c) AIR 1985 SC 1416 (Tulsiram Patel case);
(d) (1997) 11 SCC 571 (Addl.D.I.G. Of Police v. P.R.K.Mohan);
(e) 1986 LW (Criminal) 58 (Gopalan, In re);
(f) 1989 Crl.L.J 1161 (State by Asst. Inspector of Labour, Nagarcoil v.
S.Radhakrishnan), etc.,
5. 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.
5. 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
under section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act will not be a bar for getting
Government appointment.
6. 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.
vr
To
1. The District Collector, Virdhunagar District, Virdhunagar.
2. The Commissioner, Virdhunagar Panchayat Union,
Virdhunagar, Virdhunagar District.