Probation does not wipe out conviction for service purposes, and banking employment may end after moral turpitude conviction.

Probation under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act does not erase the conviction itself; it only relieves the person from statutory disqualifications attaching to conviction under other laws, so it does not create an automatic right to reinstatement in service. In banking employment, the statutory bar against employing or continuing a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude applies where the conviction stands. Embezzlement of bank money was treated as such conduct, making dismissal consistent with the governing framework and legally justified for service purposes.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether grant of benefit of probation under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 wipes out the effect of conviction so as to entitle the employee to reinstatement in service. (ii) Whether an employee convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude could validly be removed from banking service under the applicable statutory framework.

Issue (i): Whether grant of benefit of probation under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 wipes out the effect of conviction so as to entitle the employee to reinstatement in service.

Analysis: Section 12 protects a person released on probation from statutory disqualifications attaching to conviction under other laws, but it does not obliterate the conviction itself. The conviction and the finding of guilt remain intact, and the order releasing the accused on probation only substitutes the sentence. A person cannot therefore claim an automatic right to continue in service merely because probation was granted.

Conclusion: The benefit of probation did not extinguish the conviction or confer a right to reinstatement.

Issue (ii): Whether an employee convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude could validly be removed from banking service under the applicable statutory framework.

Analysis: Under Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, a banking company is prohibited from employing or continuing the employment of a person who has been convicted by a criminal court of an offence involving moral turpitude. The offence of embezzlement of bank money was treated as conduct involving moral turpitude. Dismissal based on such conviction was therefore consistent with the statutory mandate.

Conclusion: The removal from service was legally justified.

Final Conclusion: The conviction remained effective for service consequences, and the dismissal from banking service was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act does not wash away a conviction for service purposes, and a banking employer may act on a conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude where the governing statute prohibits continued employment.

---