VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

618 DECISION - 297
the question is if one of the two proceedings has culminated into an
exoneration or finding of guilty and an action is taken in consequence
of that, whether it can again be revived after the proceedings in the
different forum are terminated. The principle of double jeopardy is
well recognised. The High Court held that no penalty could be
imposed on the petitioner on the basis of his conviction by the court
and the order dismissing the appellant is illegal.
(297)
(A) Departmental action and conviction
(B) Probation of Offenders Act — dismissal, cannot be
imposed
Where convicted person is released on probation
under section 12 Probation of Offenders Act, penalty
of dismissal, which entails disqualification for future
service, cannot be imposed.
Trikha Ram vs. V.K. Seth,
1988(1) SLR SC 2
The appellant was convicted for a criminal offence and
thereafter he was dismissed from service. It was contended by the
appellant that as he was released on probation by the Magistrate
under section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, the penalty of
dismissal from service which would disqualify him from future
Government service should not have been imposed. The Supreme
Court held that since it is statutorily provided that an offender who
has been released on probation shall not suffer disqualification
attaching to a conviction of the offence for which he has been
convicted notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, instead
of dismissing him from service he should have been removed from
service so that the order of punishment did not operate as a bar and
disqualification for future employment with the Government.
Accordingly the Supreme Court converted the impugned order of
dismissal into an order of removal from service.