Supreme Court: Probation doesn't erase conviction, dismissal from service still valid

The Supreme Court has ruled that release of an offender on probation does not obliterate the stigma of conviction and as long as the conviction stands, release of a workman on probation can never be taken as ground for substituting the punishment of dismissal from service to one of compulsory retirement.

The bench set aside the High Court's observations in favor of a workman but declined to interfere with the relief granted as he had died. The court also noted that in departmental proceedings the delinquent could be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge.

An appeal was filed by the Superintending Engineer challenging the order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ appeal.

The division bench affirmed the order passed by Single Judge, who in turn confirmed the award passed in favor of respondent workman (now deceased, represented by his legal heirs) by the Labour Court, Madurai on May 11, 2009 and confirmed the decision modifying the order of dismissal into increment cut for three years.

The workman was engaged as contract labor and subsequently, as per the scheme prepared by the appellant Electricity Board, he was absorbed as a Helper on April 6, 1998.

Upon revelation that his educational certificate was bogus and the original name of the workman was P Palaniappan and he had impersonated his brother P Thangaiyan and by using his brother's educational certificate, he had obtained employment.

An enquiry was conducted against him. After conclusion of the domestic inquiry, he was dismissed from service as per order on January 31, 2005.

However, the Labour Court on May 11, 2009 substituted the punishment of dismissal from service to one of reduction of pay and increment cut for a period of three years which will operate for future increments.

In the writ petition preferred by the appellant, the Single Judge confirmed the award passed by the Labour Court and in writ appeal, the division bench of the High Court modified the order of punishment from one into increment cut for three years to compulsory retirement.

The division bench mainly relied upon the fact that in the criminal proceedings, the respondent workman was granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and thus he was never sentenced for the guilt of forging the educational qualification certificate.

The appellant's counsel submitted that the law was settled in the matter of Union of India vs Bakshi Ram (1990) that 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 to one of compulsory retirement.

In the same breath, the counsel submitted that since the respondent workman has died, the appellant Board does not wish to unsettle the benefit which has accrued to the family of the deceased workman by virtue of the impugned order but the law interpreted wrongly by the division bench should be corrected so that it does not operate as a precedent in similar cases arising in future.

Having noted the submission made by the counsel for the appellant, the court was of the considered view that what has been observed by this court in Bakshi Ram and noted by the High Court itself is that release of offenders on probation does not obliterate the stigma of conviction.

The court held that the High Court's observations ran contrary to the law laid down in Bakshi Ram.

However, considering the fact that respondent workman has died, the court stated it was not interfering with the modification of the punishment as made by the High Court in the impugned judgment.

The judgment clarifies an important principle regarding departmental proceedings against government employees convicted of criminal offenses. Even when a criminal court grants probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, which means the offender is not sentenced to imprisonment, the conviction itself remains on record.

This conviction can form the basis for departmental action including dismissal from service. The reasoning is that probation is a merciful measure by the criminal court to give the offender a chance at reformation, but it does not erase the fact that the person was found guilty of a criminal offense.

For government employees, conviction for criminal offenses, especially those involving moral turpitude like forgery or use of fake certificates, can justify dismissal from service even if the criminal court shows leniency by granting probation instead of imprisonment.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while it was correcting the legal position for future cases, it would not disturb the relief already granted to the deceased workman's family out of compassion, but made it clear that the High Court's reasoning was legally incorrect and should not be followed as precedent.

Case details: The Superintending Engineer vs The Labour Court Madurai & Ors, decided by a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria on January 12, 2026