Delhi High Court
Amar Lal Arora vs Vice Chancellor Delhi University ... on 1 December, 2010
Author: G. S. Sistani
21.
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 26/2010
% Judgment Delivered on: 01.12.2010
AMAR LAL ARORA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. R.P. Jangu, Advocate
versus
VICE CHANCELLOR DELHI UNIVERSITY & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Anurag Mathur, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. A FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Section 498A and
406 IPC. Consequent thereto, the petitioner was convicted by
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide his order dated 14th
August, 2002. Aggrieved by the order passed by Metropolitan
Magistrate, the petitioner herein, filed an appeal against the
judgment and conviction order before Additional Sessions
Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge released the petitioner on
probation for a period of one year. It was directed that a sum of
`3,00,000/- and a fine of `5,000/- imposed by the trial Court
was to be treated as cost of proceedings and a fine of `25,000/-
was treated as compensation under Section 5(1)(a) of the
Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner failed a criminal
revision before the High Court. The High Court disposed of the
revision petition on 13th July, 2009 and the operative portion of
the order reads as under :-
"8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not
wish to press the Criminal Revision petition on merits,
however, the order on conviction should not be treated as
a disqualification for reinstatement by the University. The
petitioner herein was released by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge on probation for a period of one year.
Admittedly, section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 (hereinafter referred to as the, "Act") provides that
a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under
section 3 or 4 of the said Act, shall not suffer any
disqualification attached to the conviction. Section 12 of
the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 reads as under:
"12. Removal of disqualification attaching
to conviction. -- Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law, a person found guilty
of an offence and dealt with under the provisions
of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer
disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction
of an offence under such law:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply
to a person who, after his release under section
4, is subsequently sentenced for the original
offence."
9. In view of the fact that the petitioner herein was dealt
under section 3 of the said Act, and the unambiguous
words of section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958, the petitioner will not suffer any disqualification
on this ground. The University will now consider the
representation of the petitioner in the light of section 12
of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
10 Accordingly, the present revision petition stands
disposed of."
2. The petitioner was employed with the Delhi University as a
Personal Assistant. Subsequent to the order of conviction, the
petitioner was dismissed from services.
3. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner has suffered for more than twelve years and he has
no source of income to support his old aged mother, who is a
widow.
4. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that while rejecting his
representation the respondents have failed to apply the law in
the right prospective and the petitioner should have been given
the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958.
5. The grievance of the petitioner in this contempt petition is that
despite the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and
the order passed by the High Court in criminal revision, the
University has not given benefit to the petitioner of Section 12
of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and the representation
of the petitioner has been rejected by an order dated 29th
December, 2009 Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
Shankar Dass v. Union of India, reported at AIR (1985) SC
Pg 772 more particularly paragraphs 4 and 8 which reads as
under:
"4. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act
must be placed out of way first. It provides that
notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law, a person found guilty of an offence and
dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or 4
"shall not suffer disqualification" attaching to
a conviction for an offence under such law. The
order of dismissal from service consequent upon
a conviction is not a "disqualification" within the
meaning of Section 12. There are statutes which
provide that persons who are convicted for
certain offences shall incur certain
disqualifications. For example, Chapter III of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951, entitled
"Disqualifications for membership of Parliament
and State Legislatures" and Chapter IV entitled
"Disqualifications for Voting" contain provisions
which disqualify persons convicted of certain
charges from being members of Legislatures or
from voting at elections to Legislatures. That is
the sense in which the word "disqualification" is
used in Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders
Act. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the
reasoning of the learned Single Judge of the
Delhi High Court.
8. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the
judgment of the Delhi High Court dated October
10, 1972 and direct that the appellant shall be
reinstated in service forthwith, with full back
wages from the date of his dismissal until
reinstatement. The Government of India will pay
to the appellant the costs of the suit, the first
appeal, the second appeal, the letters patent
appeal and of this appeal which we quantify at
Rupees five thousand. The appellant will report
for duty punctually at his former place of work
on April 1, 1985."
4. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon AIR (1975) SC
page 2216 and AIR 1970 Delhi page 240. Counsel for the
respondent while relying upon (1997) 11 SCC 571; AIR (1992)
SC 426; and 763 SCC 190 submits that the Department is not
precluded from taking action against the employee in the
departmental proceedings. It is further submitted by counsel
for the respondent that in any case the University has taken a
view in the matter and passed an order on the representation of
the petitioner dated 29th December, 2009 and thus no contempt
has been committed by the respondent. At this stage, counsel
for the petitioner does not wish to press the present contempt
petition and seeks liberty to assail the order dated 29th
December, 2009 and also take recourse to such other remedies
which may be available to him in accordance with law.
5. The contempt petition is dismissed as not pressed and liberty as
prayed is granted.
G.S.SISTANI,J
DECEMBER 01, 2010
AK
