Judgment :- (1) This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 05.01.2008 dismissing the petitioner from service in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 9 read with 25(i) of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short the CCA Rules) are arbitrary and illegal. (2) It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Volleyball coach in Sports Authority of A.P. on 22.12.1984. While he was working as D.S.D.O, DSA at Mahabubnagar, one Master N.Suryateja, aged about 12 years had drowned in the swimming pool and died on 20.05.2006. Alleging that the petitioner had failed to take precautionary measures at the swimming pool, leading to the death of the boy, charge memo dated 29.07.2006 was issued calling upon him to submit his explanation. Two other charges relating to financial irregularities were also framed against him and the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 19.08.2006 denying the allegations. (3) The petitioner was also prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC on a complaint lodged by the parents of the deceased boy and after full fledged trial, by judgment dated 31.10.2007, in C.C.No.294 of 2006 the petitioner was convicted by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Basing on the said conviction, the 2nd respondent herein passed the impugned order dated 05.01.2008 dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from 13.11.2007. While so, Criminal Appeal No.165 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar, preferred by the petitioner against the conviction and sentence ordered in C.C.No.294 of 2006 was disposed of by judgment dated 22.09.2008. Though the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC, instead of sentencing, the petitioner was released under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on entering into a bond of Rs.10,000/-. It was also observed by the Appellate Court that the conviction shall not effect his service career as per Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It was also observed by the Appellate Court that the conviction shall not effect his service career as per Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The operative portion of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.165 of 2007 may be extracted hereunder: (4) In the circumstances of the case, not withstanding contained in any other law for the time being in force instead of sentencing, Appellants 1 and 2 to undergo any punishment, I hereby direct that they shall be released under Section 4(1) of the P.O. Act on their entering into a bond for Rs.,10,000/-with one surety like sum each, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during two years as this court may direct and in the meantime to keep peace and good behaviour, further, directing that the appellants 1 and 2 A1 and A2 shall be under the supervision of the District Probation Officer, Mahabubnagar for two years as required U/s 4(3) of P.O. Act. It is further ordered u/s 5 of P.O. Act that the appellants A1 and A2 shall pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each to PW1 Dalitha Kishan Das for death of his son, after revision or revisional time is over. In default of any of the said direction, Appellants A1 and A2 will be proceeded with further as per law. (5) Having ordered the appellants/A1 and A2 to be released on P.O. Act, their conviction shall not effect their service career as per Sec.12 of the said Act. Already paid fine of Rs.1,000/- each by the appellants 1 and 2 has to be adjusted towards the said compensation. In such an event, each appellant shall pay now Rs.24,000/-towards compensation. (6) Basing on the said judgment, the petitioner states that he made a representation dated 13.10.2008 requesting to reinstate him into service with all service benefits. Alleging that the 2nd respondent failed to pass any order, the present writ petition has been filed. (7) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent contending that since the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC was confirmed by the appellate Court, the petitioner was not entitled for reinstatement as claimed by him. (8) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. (9) As noticed above, the facts are not in dispute. (8) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. (9) As noticed above, the facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. As per Rule 45 of the A.P. Sports Authorities Rules, 1993, the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules shall apply to the employees of the Sports Authority in respect of matters regarding conduct and discipline. Accordingly, exercising the powers conferred by Rule 9 read with 25(i) of the CCA Rules, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 05.01.2008 dismissing the petitioner from service. Subsequently, by virtue of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.165 of 2007, the petitioner was released under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. (10) The question that arises for consideration is whether by virtue of the judgment of the appellate Court directing release of the petitioner under Probation of Offenders Act, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service. (11) At the outset, it is to be noticed that the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be invoked only after convicting the accused. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 provides for release of offenders on probation or after due admonition and for matter connected therewith. This Act empowers the Courts to release on probation of good conduct in all suitable cases a person, who is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 379 or Section 380 or Section 381 or Section 404 or Section 420 of IPC or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years or with fine or with both under the Indian Penal Code or any other law. However, the release under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 does not mean that the conviction itself is set aside. While upholding the conviction, the Act empowers the Courts to order release subject to certain terms and conditions instead of sentencing the accused to undergo punishment of imprisonment. Hence, the mere fact that the petitioner was released by the Appellate Court under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 does not automatically entitle him to seek reinstatement into service. While upholding the conviction, the Act empowers the Courts to order release subject to certain terms and conditions instead of sentencing the accused to undergo punishment of imprisonment. Hence, the mere fact that the petitioner was released by the Appellate Court under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 does not automatically entitle him to seek reinstatement into service. (12) However, the learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the direction by the Appellate Court that the conviction shall not effect the service career of the petitioner as per Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, vehemently contended that the respondents were bound by the said direction and therefore, the petitioner should have been reinstated into service. (13) Section 12 of the Probation of Offender Act runs as under: 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 disqualifications, 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. (14) As could be seen, Section 12 deals with removal of disqualification attaching to conviction and the said provision is applicable in respect of disqualification that goes with a conviction under the law, which provides for the offence and its punishment. However, the power conferred under Section 12 does not empower the Court to pass orders, which tend to interfere with the service career of the convict. The Appellate Court in my considered opinion was not justified in issuing such a direction which is not permissible under law. In UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. BAKSHI RAM[1] having considered the scope and object of section 12 of the Act the Supreme Court held as under: Section 12 is thus clear and it only directs that the offender shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. Such law in the context is other law providing for disqualification on account of conviction. Such law in the context is other law providing for disqualification on account of conviction. For instance, if a law provides for disqualification of a person for being appointed in any office or for seeking election to any authority or body in view of his conviction, that disqualification by virtue of Section 12 stands removed. That in effect is the scope and effect of Section 12 of the Act. But that is not the same thing to state that the person who has been dismissed from service in view of his conviction is entitled to reinstatement upon getting the benefit of probation of good conduct. Apparently, such a view has no support by the terms of Section 12 and the order of the High court cannot, therefore, be sustained. (15) For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner cannot be said to have acquired any legal right for reinstatement into service by virtue of the direction issued by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in Criminal Appeal No.165 of 2007. (16) Hence, no mandamus as prayed for can be issued and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.