HARDEEP SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 1138 · Decided: 13-08-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

HARDEEP SINGH 
-'-. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
AUGUST 13, 1987 
B 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
1 
Civil Services: Punjab Police Rules 1934, Rules 12. 31and16. 24 . ..J.. 
(ix)(b)-Police Constable on probation-Order of removal from 
service passed on account of union activities-No chargesheet served-
No enquiry held-Order, when can be quashed. 
_,,.-
c 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 311(2)-Whether a probationer r 
is entitled to protection, and if so, when. 
The petitiuner, a Cunstable In the Haryana Police Service, was 
removed from service during the periud of probation. However, be was 
D not given any opportunity of bearing against the purported order of 
~ 
dismissal from service. He challenged the impugned order of removal 
on the ground that he was removed from service because of bl• activities 
in the Haryana Police Association and It was in fact a penal order and as 
such the same being made without complying with the requirements of 
Article 311(2) as well as Rule 16.24(1x)(b) of the Punjab Police Rules, 
E 1934, it is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted. 
·~ 
It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the Impugned 
.> 
order is not an order of dismissal from service and in fact this is an 
order of discharge made under Rule 12.21 of the Rules since the 
r 
appointing authority was of considered opinion on the assessment of his 
F conduct and performance that the petitioner was unlikely to prove an 
efficient police officer. 
Allowing the writ petition to this Court, 
HELD: 1. (i) The impugned order of removal/dismissal from 
G service was in substance and in effect an order made by way of punish-
~· 
ment after considering the service conduct of the petiti<iner. It is there-
fore quashed and it is directed that he be reinstated in service with 50 
per cent back wages from the date of termination of his service till the 
date of his reinstatement. He would, however, be entitled to his full -
salary and other allowances admissible w.e.f. the date of his reinstate-
H ment. There would however be no break in continuity of service for 
purposes of seniority and pension benefits. [1144D; 1145A·CI 
1138 
::;;. 
r 
~ 
-
i 
...... 
-~ 
..._ 
-1 
I 
HARDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
1139 
(ii) There is no doubt that the impugned order casts a stigma on 
A 
the service career of the petitioner and the order being made by way of 
punishment, the petitioner is entitled to the protection afforded by the 
provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution as well as by the provi-
sions of Rule 16.24(ix)(b) of the Punjab Police Rules 1934. [1144E] 
(iii) It cannot be said that the impugned order is an order simpli· 
B 
citer of removal from service of a probationer in accordance with 
the terms and conditions of service. The impugned order undoubtedly 
tantamounts to the dismissal from the service for reasons of misconduct 
of the petitioner in discharge of the official duties as police cons-
table. [1144G-H] 
2. A probationer has no right to the post and if he is found by the c 
concerned authorities to be unsuitable for the post during th_e probation 
period his service may be done away with. But nonetheless such a 
probationer has a right to have an opportunity of hearing against the 
order of dismissal/removal from the service if the same is made in effect 
by way of punishment or the same casts a stigma on the service career of 
D 
the petitioner. [1141G-H; 1142A] 
In the instant case, the petitioner has not been served with any 
charges of misconduct in discharge of his duties as a police constable 
nor has he ever been asked to show cause against the said charges. The 
order of removal from service was made because of his. union activities 
namely participating in the call for expressing the protest of the Asso-
E 
' 
ciation for improvement in service conditions by abstaining from taking 
meals in the Mess on 15th August, 1982 although the petitioner like 
other members of the association performed his duties on that day and 
did not abstain from duty. [1144E·G] 
P.L. Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 (SC) 36; Samsher 
F 
Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., AIR 1974 (SC) 2192; Anoop Jaiswal 
v. Government of India & Anr., AIR 1964 (SC) 636 and Ajit Singh & 
Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., W.P. No. 9345-94 98/1983, followed. 
y 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1615 of 
~~-
G 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
R.P. Gupta for the Petitioner. 
C.V. Subba Rao fo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.