[2025:RJ-JP:39232] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17321/2013 Lal Chand Meena S/o Shri Chunni Lal Meena, aged about 35 years, resident of Village Jodhpura, Post Mandliya, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Zila Parishad, Kota through the Chief Executive Officer. 3. Panchayat Samiti, Ladpura through its Development Officer, Kota. 4. Superintendent of Police, District Kota Rural. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Sharma on behalf of Mr. Tanveer Ahmed For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 23/09/2025 1. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 13.09.2013 issued by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Ladpura, District Kota (Rajasthan), whereby appointment order of the petitioner has been cancelled, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is submitted that pursuant to advertisement issued by Panchayati Raj Department for inviting applications from all eligible persons for the post of LDC in the year 2013, the petitioner submitted his application form. After participating in the [2025:RJ-JP:39232] (2 of 5) [CW-17321/2013] recruitment process, the petitioner was selected on the post of LDC and even appointment order dated 28.06.2013 was also issued, whereby after appointment, the petitioner was directed to be posted in Gram Panchayat Kalyakhedi Panchayat Samiti Ladpura, District Kota. 3. It is stated that much earlier to initiation of recruitment process, the petitioner was falsely implicated in a criminal case along with eight other persons on account of old enmity and charges under Sections 147, 148, 341 & 323/149 were initially framed against the accused in the aforesaid criminal case. However, after trial, the petitioner was convicted for committing offence under Section 148 of IPC. However, even after conviction, instead of awarding sentence, Criminal Court granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the petitioner by judgment dated 01.09.2008. 4. It is also submitted that the aforesaid criminal case was never concealed by the petitioner and it was disclosed to the respondent-Department. However, one order dated 13.09.2013 was issued by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Ladpura wherein it was mentioned that during police verification, it was found that vide judgment dated 01.09.2008, the petitioner was convicted and was granted benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, hence, the petitioner was not entitled for Government service and therefore, the appointment order dated 28.06.2013 was cancelled. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, where the judgment dated 01.09.2008 did not cast any ineligibility upon the petitioner moreso instead of [2025:RJ-JP:39232] (3 of 5) [CW-17321/2013] awarding sentence benefit of Section 4 was given to the petitioner therefore, cancelling appointment order only on account of aforesaid judgment dated 01.09.2008 was not at all justified. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that it is well within the rights of employers to determine that all employees should be of clear conduct having no criminal antecedents. In the instant case, perusal of judgment dated 01.09.2008 would make it clear that the petitioner has been convicted by the competent Criminal Court. It was further mentioned that merely grant of benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Act of 1958 would not confer any vested right upon the petitioner to claim appointment and the respondent-Government being employer could still examine the nature of the offences alleged against the petitioner and even the benefit of Section 12 of the Act of 1958 was not given in the aforesaid judgment so as to absolve the petitioner from all the civil liabilities attached to the criminal offence. 7. I have heard rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Facts are not in dispute that the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case and has also undergone the trial before the competent Criminal Court, where vide judgment dated 01.09.2008, although he was found guilty under Section 148 of IPC, yet benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 was granted to the petitioner and no sentence was awarded to him. 9. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had concealed the aforesaid criminal case or the judgment, however, the only reason which has been assigned in the [2025:RJ-JP:39232] (4 of 5) [CW-17321/2013] impugned order dated 13.09.2013 was that on account of conviction and grant of benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958, the petitioner was not suitable for Government service. 10. It would be relevant to refer to Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 which reads as under:- "Section-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." 11. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would make it clear that it is a non obstante clause which states that where a person has been found guilty of an offence and has been granted benefit of Section 4 then such person shall not suffer any disqualification whatsoever attached to conviction of an offence. Thus, mere grant of benefit of Section 4 would automatically confer the right upon the petitioner to claim benefits under Section 12 of the Act of 1958, which is consequential in nature and no separate finding in the judgment of Criminal Court is required to be given. Similar question has been examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal Nos.4860-4861/2024 decided on 28.11.2024 and it has been held as under:- "On perusal thereof, we had no scintilla of doubt that when a person who is found guilty, is extended the benefit of Section 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, then he shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to the conviction of an offence under such law. Therefore, on extending the benefit of Section 4 by the High Court to the appellant and other co-accused persons, the grant [2025:RJ-JP:39232] (5 of 5) [CW-17321/2013] of benefit of Section 12 is consequential. Therefore, rejection of such a prayer by the subsequent order dated 05.07.2022 of the High Court does not appear to be justifiable." 12. This Court in the case of Krishan Gopal Sharma Vs. The General Manager & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2106/2021 decided on 09.06.2025, has given similar observations in respect of Section 12 of the Act of 1958. 13. In the light of above discussion, it becomes clear that the cancellation of appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 13.09.2013 is totally arbitrary and the petitioner cannot be considered to be ineligible for Government employment only on account of aforesaid criminal case, resultin in grant of benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Act of 1958. Hence, the order dated 13.09.2013 is hereby quashed and set aside; as the petitioner was already continuing by virtue of interim order dated 25.09.2013 passed by this Court in the instant writ petition, therefore, he shall be allowed to continue and was be granted all the consequential benefits in accordance with the Rules. 14. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid directions. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /49