The Supreme Court, in a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, held that a public employer has no authority under law to dismiss or remove an employee solely on the ground of the pendency of a criminal case without providing an opportunity of defence. While clarifying that release on probation under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 does not obliterate a conviction or bar service termination, the apex court ruled that discharging a police personnel serving for over a decade merely due to pending criminal proceedings was illegal and arbitrary. Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed the State of Punjab to pay ₹5,00,000 in compensation to the appellant.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Satpal Singh, was appointed as a Special Police Officer (SPO) in Police District Batala on October 17, 1991. While performing his duties, he was selected for appointment as a Constable in the First Indian Reserve Battalion (IRB), Patiala, vide a letter dated August 27, 2002. However, upon reporting for duty on August 30, 2002, he was denied joining due to the pendency of a criminal case registered against him under Sections 324, 326, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at Police Station Sadar, Pathankot (FIR No. 159 dated July 20, 2001).
On January 14, 2003, the appellant was discharged from service with reference to the pending criminal proceedings.
Subsequent to his discharge, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pathankot convicted the appellant under Sections 324 and 326 IPC on April 21, 2006, sentencing him to two and three years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide judgment dated August 27, 2007, upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC while setting aside the conviction under Section 326 IPC. The appellate court released him on probation of good conduct for two years, observing that the conviction would not affect his service career, relying on a High Court decision in Jaswant Singh v. The State of Punjab.
The appellant then filed a civil suit in 2008 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, seeking a declaration that the denial of joining and his discharge were illegal, along with reinstatement and consequential service benefits. The trial court decreed the suit on December 2, 2011, directing his reinstatement with continuity of service, though denying back wages.
On appeal by the state respondents, the District Judge, Gurdaspur set aside the trial court decree on May 21, 2014, and dismissed the suit. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirmed the dismissal on May 12, 2016, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents acted illegally in discharging him from service when the criminal case was merely pending and prior to any conviction. It was contended that the appellate criminal court had explicitly directed that the conviction under Section 324 IPC would not affect his service career—an order that attained finality as it was not challenged by the state. Relying on Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the appellant argued that he had a legitimate expectation of reinstatement. Further, he argued that the discharge violated principles of natural justice as he was neither given notice nor heard before termination. Alternatively, compensation was sought for wrongful termination.
Counsel for the state respondents argued that the appeal was devoid of merit, relying on precedent to contend that the High Court judgment affirming the dismissal of the suit was correct.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which deals with the removal of disqualification attached to a conviction. The Court observed that Section 12 contains two components and clarified that release on probation does not obliterate a conviction or protect a public employee from termination under Article 311 of the Constitution.
Analyzing the scope of Section 12, the Court observed:
“The words “shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law” are important. The same cannot be stretched to mean that release on probation would operate as a bar to terminate the service of a convict if he is in public employment and to whom the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution apply. Release on probation does not obliterate the conviction.”
The Court explained that the word “law” in Section 12 refers to general or special statutes passed by Parliament or state legislatures and does not override constitutional provisions. Therefore, a civil post holder under the State can still be removed from service based on conduct leading to conviction, notwithstanding release on probation.
The Court noted that the Single Judge decision in Jaswant Singh v. The State of Punjab, relied upon by the Additional Sessions Judge, failed to consider binding Supreme Court precedents in Southern Railway v. T.R. Chellapan and Trikha Ram v. V.K. Seth, and held that Jaswant Singh does not lay down the correct law. The Court clarified that while Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel partly overruled T.R. Chellapan, the relevant observations remained undisturbed.
Citing past rulings including Union of India v. Bakshi Ram, Karam Singh v. State of Punjab, DIG of Police v. P.R.K. Mohan, Shankar Dass v. Union of India, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ranjit Singh, and Punjab Water Supply Sewerage Board v. Ram Sajivan, the apex court reiterated the summary of law laid down in Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Punjab National Bank:
“In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the conviction of an employee in an offence permits the disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee or to take appropriate steps for his dismissal/removal only on the basis of his conviction. The word “disqualification” contained in Section 12 of the 1958 Act refers to a disqualification provided in other statutes, as explained by this Court in the abovereferred cases, and the employee cannot claim a right to continue in service merely on the ground that he had been given the benefit of probation under the 1958 Act.”
However, evaluating the validity of the discharge order dated January 14, 2003, the Supreme Court held that the appellant was dealt a “raw deal.” The Court observed:
“The fact of discharge on the stated ground is admitted by the respondents. That the appellant at a later stage stood convicted under Section 324, IPC cannot cure the illegality vitiating the order of discharge when it was made.”
Addressing the lack of legal authority and procedural fairness, the Court noted:
“He was not given an opportunity of raising his defence. We have not been shown any law which authorises a public employer to either dismiss or remove an employee serving the police for more than a decade solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case.”
While observing that civil courts cannot grant reinstatement due to Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and that the suit frame was defective for failing to explicitly challenge the discharge order, the Court held that the state could not be completely absolved of the consequences of its illegal act.
Decision of the Court
To do complete justice between the parties, the Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and directed the state respondents to pay compensation of ₹5,00,000 (Rupees five lakh) to the appellant within three months from the date of the judgment. The civil appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Case Title: SPO/Constable IRB Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 9749 of 2016
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
Date: August 04, 2026
