The Delhi High Court has held that when an offender is released on probation under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the disqualification arising from a conviction for public employment no longer applies. However, the conviction itself does not disappear.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia delivered the ruling. The Court examined the scope of Section 12, which states that a person dealt with under the Act “shall not suffer disqualification” attached to a conviction.
Background
The respondent faced conviction under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. His wife had filed the complaint. He challenged the conviction through an appeal.
During the proceedings, the couple dissolved their marriage by mutual consent.
The appellate court upheld the conviction. However, it ordered the respondent’s release on probation of good conduct under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Later, the Airports Authority of India (AAI) issued a recruitment notification. The post was for Junior Executive (Common Cadre).
The respondent applied and cleared the selection process. The AAI declared him successful.
In the attestation form, the candidate disclosed his earlier conviction. He also mentioned that the court had released him on probation.
Despite this disclosure, the AAI cancelled his appointment. It stated that his conviction involved moral turpitude, making him ineligible.
The respondent challenged this decision before the Delhi High Court.
A Single Judge allowed his petition. The Judge directed the AAI to appoint him. The Court held that Section 12 removed the disqualification attached to his conviction.
Aggrieved by this order, the AAI filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench.
Submissions Before the Court
The AAI argued that a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude remains ineligible for appointment.
It submitted that probation does not erase a conviction. The AAI also claimed that employers have discretion to verify antecedents and assess suitability. According to the AAI, Section 12 does not limit this discretion.
The respondent opposed these arguments. He stated that Section 12 clearly removes disqualification flowing from a conviction. Since the court released him on probation, the bar to appointment could not apply.
Court’s Findings
The Division Bench noted that Regulation 6(7)(b) of the AAI service regulations treats persons convicted of offences involving moral turpitude as ineligible for appointment.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Shankar Dass v. Union of India. The Supreme Court clarified that “disqualification” under Section 12 refers to statutory bars that prevent convicted persons from holding certain rights or offices.
The Bench explained that denial of a fresh appointment due to conviction amounts to a disqualification under Section 12.
The Court found that the respondent’s ineligibility arose directly from his conviction under the AAI regulations.
Since the appellate court released him on probation, Section 12 removed the disqualification attached to the conviction.
The Bench clarified that Section 12 does not wipe out the conviction itself. However, it eliminates the consequential bar on public employment.
The Court also noted that the offences arose from a matrimonial dispute. The parties later resolved the matter amicably. The marriage ended by mutual consent, and the complainant-wife raised no objection.
Decision
The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s order directing the Airports Authority of India to appoint the respondent as Junior Executive.
Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the AAI was dismissed.
Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajesh
Counsel for the Appellant: Anjana Gosain, Akansha Choudhary and Shreya Manjari, Advocates
Counsel for the Respondent: N.L Bareja and Saqib, Advocates
