B.S.CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) THE instant petition has been filed challenging the order of discharge dated 31.3.1994 (Ann. 4) from Boarder Security Force (hereinafter called B.S.F.).
(2.) THE factual gamut of the case reveals that at the time of entering into service the petitioner was asked to fill up the form which contained a clause for furnishing information specifically whether he had ever been involved in a criminal case or not. The petitioner replied in no. On the basis of the said form the petitioner's candidature was considered and he was enrolled in B.S.F. a disciplined force. On verification from the Collector. Jodhpur, it came to the knowledge of the respondents that the petitioner had been involved in a criminal case and after getting this report a show cause notice was issued to him and after considering his reply he was discharged from service vide order dated 31st March 1994 contained in Ann. 4 to this writ petition. Hence this petition. The petitioner was specifically asked as what was the reason for furnishing the false information at that time to seeking appointment when he applied for the service on 7th August 1993 as the petitioner stood convicted vide judgment and order dated 3rd Feb. 1993 in case No. 159/1992 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Bilara, for the offences punishable under Sections 147 - r/w 332 and Section 322/149 I.P.C. However, considering the age and back ground of the petitioner he was given benefit of provisions of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. 1958, (hereinafter called 'the Probation Act'). The petitioner has urged in this petition that if a convict is given benefit under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Probation Act, the mandatory requirement of Section 12 of the said Act takes away the fact of conviction as well as of punishment awarded to the accused. This view stands fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Itha Chadra Rao us. State of A.P. 1981 (Suppl) SCC 17. This case was reconsidered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Chand v. Director of Schools 1988 (1) JT 124 and it has categorically been held that Section 12 of the Probation Act applies in respect of dis -qualification that goes with the conviction under the law which provides for offence punishable and its punishment and it cannot be held that conviction should not be considered for dismissal of a person from Govt. service. Hence the submission/ground taken by the petitioner is preposterous.
(3.) THUS , in view of above, the petitioner is not entitled to claim benefit under the provisions of Section 12 of the Probation Act and the case remains that the petitioner entered into service by making mis -representation that amounts to fraud.;