Supreme Court: In twin appeals by the State challenging the High Court’s affirmation of decision of First Appellate Court and Trial Court holding the discharge order against the Constable illegal on the ground of being passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. found the decision of the High Court and two Courts below to be completely erroneous in law and set them aside while getting into detailed interpretation of Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (‘PPR’).
Factual Background
The respondent in the instant appeals was a Constable with Punjab Police on probation, who joined service on 12-11-1989. He was sent to Police Recruits Training Centre and meanwhile, he was sent to Amritsar along with other recruit constables on 24-11-1990 for special duty as security guards. All the constables were relieved after completion of the said assignment and reported back to Training Centre except the respondent Constable who remained absent without any intimation. The Superintendent of Police of Training Centre reported his prolonged absence from duty to the Senior Superintendent of Police (‘SSP’) vide memorandum dated 21-02-1991, recommending for his discharge.
The respondent Constable was discharged from services by SSP during probation, while exercising power under PPR. The Constable challenged stating that he fell sick after the special duty and when he returned to rejoin duty along with medical and fitness certificates, he was not allowed for the same due to discharge, without any show-cause notice. While deciding challenge against the same, the Trial Court partly decreed and held the discharge order illegal on the ground of being passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
The State as well as Constable preferred first appeal before Additional District Judge. The Constable sought relief of mandatory injunction stating that since the order discharging him from services was illegal, he should be allowed to join duty and be granted all consequential benefits. The First Appellate Court dismissed appeal by the State and allowed the Constable’s appeal holding him entitled to receive all service benefits as accrued. The State challenged the decision in second appeals before the High Court against the judgment and mandatory injunction granting all service benefits to the Constable, but both the appeals were dismissed. Hence, the State preferred instant appeals.
Court’s Analysis of Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934
The Court noted that the Constable was discharged from service under Rule 12.21 of PPR while the appellants representing State opined that the probationer Constable was not likely to become an efficient police officer. The Court went through the Rule 12.21 of PPR and cited Sher Singh, Ex-Constable v. State of Haryana, 1994 SCC OnLine P&H 166 regarding examination of content and scope of Rules 12.21, 19.3 and 19.5 of PPR wherein, it was held that “during the period of probation the constable remains under surveillance and is kept in close supervision. The probationer has no right to the post and the services are terminable at any time during the said period. The probationer can secure his position in service only if he convinces the Superintendent of Police that he is likely to prove as an efficient police officer. If on a consideration of the relevant material, the Superintendent of Police finds that a particular constable is not active, disciplined, self-reliant, punctual, sober, courteous, straightforward or that he does not possess the knowledge of the technical details of the work required to be performed by him, he can reasonably form an opinion that he is not likely to prove an efficient police officer. In such a situation, the Superintendent of Police can invoke his power under Rule 12.21 of PPR and can discharge the constable from the force.” The said observations were approved by Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 569 while relying on Supdt. of Police v. Dwarka Das, (1979) 3 SCC 789 regarding SP’s power to discharge probationer.
The Court further referred to State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 11 SCC 743 when the Court considered Rule 12.21 of PPR pressing upon the reason behind passing the discharge order, being punitive or termination simpliciter, to be determined with the test of ‘object of the enquiry’. It further relied on Ravindra Kumar Misra v. U.P. State Handloom Corpn. Ltd., 1987 Supp SCC 739 which brought in the distinction between simpliciter termination and punitive termination applying the test of motive and foundation.
Conclusion
With reference to various judgments and the reiterated principles, the Court viewed that examination of facts which led to the order of discharge clarified that the respondent was appointed as Constable and joined duties on 12-11-1989 on probation, and during training, he was deputed for special duty in Amritsar on 24-11-1990 but did not return with other recruits and remained on prolonged absence without any intimation to the Training Centre. The recommendation by SP reflected that the said Constable did not show any interest in training and lacked sense of responsibility, recommending his unlikeliness to prove as a good and efficient police officer, suggesting his discharge under Rule 12.21 of PPR. The same was relied upon by SSP which led to discharge order.
The Court viewed that all three Courts misconstrued Rule 12.21 of PPR while decreeing the suit filed by the Constable. It expressed that the contents of order of discharge indicated no foundation of misconduct, but it was an order of simpliciter discharge of a probationer. The Court held the decision of High Court and two Courts below to be completely erroneous in law and set them aside while allowing the appeals.
[State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1111, decided on 5-09-2023]
Judgment authored by: Justice J.K. Maheshwari
Know Thy Judge| Supreme Court of India: Justice Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellants: Advocate on Record Karan Sharma
For Respondents: Advocate on Record Yadav Narender Singh, Advocate Jagdish Parshad, Advocate Mayank Kumar Singh, Advocate Manu Prakash Uphadhyay
