Benefit Of Probation Removes Disqualification Attached To Conviction For Public Employment: Delhi High Court

The Court clarified that while conviction is not erased by release on probation, the statutory protection under Section 12 of the Act prevents the candidate from suffering a disqualification that is expressly attached to such conviction. It distinguished between dismissal from service as a disciplinary consequence and statutory ineligibility arising solely on account of conviction

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia delivered the judgment while dismissing an intra-court appeal filed by the Union of India and the Airports Authority of India (AAI) against an order directing appointment of the respondent to the post of Junior Executive (Common Cadre).

“…since in this case the respondent was held to be ineligible for appointment only on account of his conviction where he was given benefit of Section 4 of the Act, 1958, in our opinion, the respondent is entitled to protection of Section 12 of the Act, 1958 and he cannot be made to suffer such disqualification attached to his conviction as he was released on probation under Section 4 of the Act, 1958”, the bench observed.

“Dismissal from service or any other punishment as described in Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is not a disqualification or ineligibility for an employee to be retained in service attaching to his conviction, whereas conviction of an offence is an ineligibility in terms of Regulation 6(7)(b) of the Regulations, 2003, and therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the respondent cannot be permitted to suffer the said ineligibility or disqualification from appointment with the appellant – AAI by virtue of Section 12 of the Act, 1958”, the bench further observed .

Advocate Anjana Gosain appeared for the appellants and Advocate N.L. Bareja appeared for the respondent.

In the present matter, the respondent had been convicted on 04-09-2014 under Sections 498A and 406 IPC in a matrimonial dispute. During pendency of his criminal appeal, the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent. The appellate court upheld the conviction but released him on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, noting settlement between the parties.

On 27-03-2024, the respondent was selected for appointment with AAI, however, he had disclosed his conviction and release on probation in the attestation form.

Despite the disclosure, his offer of appointment was cancelled on the ground that Regulation 6(7)(b) of the Airports Authority of India (General Conditions of Service and Remuneration of Employees) Regulations, 2003 rendered persons convicted of offences involving moral turpitude ineligible for appointment.

A writ petition challenging the cancellation was allowed by a Single Judge, who directed AAI to appoint the respondent, and thereby, the present Letters Patent Appeal assailed that decision.

Therefore, now the issue that the court had to determine was whether the ineligibility under Regulation 6(7)(b) was a disqualification “attaching to conviction” within the meaning of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

The Bench held that Regulation 6(7)(b) makes conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude the very basis of ineligibility. Since the ineligibility flows directly from the conviction, and the respondent had been dealt with under Section 4 of the Act, the statutory protection under Section 12 applied.

Accordingly, on finding no infirmity in the reasoning, the Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the direction to appoint the respondent against the vacant post.

Cause Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Rajesh [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:572-DB]

Appearances:

Appellants: Anjana Gosain, Akansha Choudhary and Shreya Manjari, Advocates.

Respondent: N.L. Bareja and Mr. Saqib, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment