Probation Does Not Erase Conviction: Misconduct Remains Misconduct: Supreme Court Rejects Shielding Dismissed Employee Despite Probation

“Conviction remains intact; only sentence is substituted. Departmental punishment can follow” — In a judgment that reinforces the legal principle that release on probation does not whitewash a criminal conviction, the Supreme Court held that a public servant convicted for misconduct is not entitled to immunity from departmental action merely because he was released on probation.

The Court sternly rejected the Madras High Court’s view that the workman’s conviction could not operate as a disqualification due to the benefit of probation granted in criminal proceedings, terming it “contrary to settled law”. Instead, the Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria reiterated that conviction remains a valid ground for dismissal, even where no sentence is imposed.

“Release on probation is not an acwquittal — The stain of guilt remains”

The judgment centres around a workman who had secured employment by impersonating his brother and using forged educational certificates. Originally hired as contract labour and later absorbed as a Helper in the Electricity Board, he was dismissed after a departmental inquiry confirmed serious misconduct involving identity fraud and forgery.

However, the Labour Court softened the blow by reducing the punishment to a cut in pay and increment for three years, a view upheld by a Single Judge of the High Court. The Division Bench went further and modified the penalty to compulsory retirement, noting that in criminal proceedings, the workman had not been sentenced but was released under probation.

This reasoning was squarely rejected by the Supreme Court, which observed: “Release of offenders on probation does not obliterate the stigma of conviction.”

Quoting extensively from Union of India v. Bakshi Ram, the Court reaffirmed that: “The conviction of the accused or the finding of the court that he is guilty cannot be washed out at all because that is the sine qua non for the order of release on probation… the order of release on probation is merely in substitution of the sentence.”

“Section 12 does not create a right of reinstatement — it only removes statutory disqualifications under other laws”

The High Court had relied on Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, interpreting it to mean that the conviction would not disqualify the workman from continued service. The Supreme Court decisively dismantled this interpretation.

“It was suggested that Section 12 of the Act completely obliterates the effect of any conviction… this argument is based on a gross misreading.”

The Court explained that Section 12 only shields a convict from disqualifications that are expressly provided under laws other than the Probation Act, such as disqualifications for contesting elections or holding certain offices. It does not prevent an employer from dismissing an employee for misconduct proven through conviction.

“The question of reinstatement into service from which he was removed in view of his conviction does not therefore arise. That seems obvious from the terminology of Section 12.”

In fact, the judgment clarifies that conviction, even with probation, remains a sufficient basis for removal under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, which permits dismissal without a full inquiry when the misconduct has led to a criminal conviction.

“High Court fell into error — Law must be set right, even if punishment is not disturbed”

Recognising the settled position in law, the Bench corrected the High Court's legal error:

“The observation made by the High Court runs contrary to the law laid down in Bakshi Ram… Therefore, we set aside the observation of the High Court made in favour of the respondent-workman.”

However, the Court adopted a measured approach in the ultimate relief. Noting that the workman had since passed away, and benefits had already accrued to his legal heirs, the Court refrained from disturbing the modified punishment of compulsory retirement.

“Considering the fact that respondent-workman has died, we are not interfering with the modification of the punishment as made by the High Court in the impugned judgment.”

“Conviction is one thing, sentence is another — Departmental punishment is a third”

The Court once again underlined the distinct spheres of criminal conviction, sentencing, and service law consequences:

“In criminal trial the conviction is one thing and sentence is another. The departmental punishment for misconduct is yet a third one.”

Referring to the reasoning in T.R. Chellappan, Trikha Ram, and Tulsiram Patel, the Court emphasised that a disciplinary authority is not barred from acting against an employee merely because the sentence was substituted with probation.

In sum, the decision preserves the integrity of public employment standards, ensuring that forgery, impersonation, and similar misconduct cannot be shielded by a technical release on probation.

Date of Decision: 12 January 2026