LexRAJINDER KAUR versus PUNJAB STATE & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
RAJINDER KAUR
v.
PUNJAB STATE &ANR.
AUGUST 8, 1986
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.]
Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Vol. 7, Rule 12.21-Constitution of
India, Article 311 (2 ): Temporary constable-Order of discharge from
service· in innocuous terms...::.Based on allegation of misconduct-
Whether unconstitutional and liable to be quashed.
The appellant, a temporary lady constable, was discharged from
service by an order nnder Role ll.21 Volnme 7 of the Punjab Police
Rules 1934 on the allegation that she was unlikely to prove an efficient
police officer. A representation made by her to the Deputy Inspector
General of Police .igainst that order was rejected. A revision filed by the
appellant against the latter order was dismissed. A suit filed by her
challenging the order of discharge as bad, arbitrary and against the
principles of law was dismissed. This order was confirmed by the Dis-
trict Judge and the High Court in appeal.
In the appeal to this Court by special leave it was contended for
the appellant that the impugned order of discharge from service was
made not in accordance with the said Rule, in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the service, but was made by way of punish-
F
ment on the ground of her misconduct, as found on the basis of the
·1
investigation of certain allegations behind her back, without giving her
G
any opportunity of hearing in the enquiry or to cross-examine the
. witnesses.
Allowing the appeal, the Court,
HELD: The impugned order of discharge, though couched in in-
nocuous terms and stated to be made in accordance with the provisions
of Rule ll.21, Vol. 7 of the Puujab Police Rules, 1934, was really a
camouflage for an order of dismissal from service ou the ground of
misconduct as. found 011 an enquiry into the allegations behind her back.
H
It was penal in nature as it cast a stigma on the service career of the
500
R. KAUR v. PUN.STATE !RAY,J.]
501
appellant. This order was made without serving the appellant any
chargesheet without asking for any explanation from her without giving
any opportunity to show cause against the purported order of dismissal
from service and without giving any opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses. It, therefore, contravenes Art. 311(2) of the Constitution and
is liable to he quashed and set aside. [503F-G; 504B; 506B-C]
P.L. Dhingra v. Union of India, [1958] SCR p. 828 at 862, K.H.
Phadnis v. State of Maharashtra, (1971] SCR (Supp.)) p. Jl8, State of
Bihar & Ors. v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra, [1971] 2 SCR 191 at 196,
Shamsher Sing~ & Anr. v. State of Punjab, [1975] l SCR p. ~14 at 837
and Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India & Anr., [1984] 2 SCR p.
453, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 23l7
of 1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.1984 of the Punjab
and HaryanaHigh Court in R.S.A. No. 2198of1984.
K.N. Rai for the Appellant.
R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, J. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties
and on consideration of the question of law involved in this petition.
·{
Special Leave is granted. Arguments heard.
·
The appellant petitioner was appointed as a lady constable in
Hoshiarpur District on 7.5.1979. After completion of training she was
posted in March, 1980 in the police lines, Hoshiarpur. The Superinten-
dent of Police, Hoshiarpur discharged the appellant from service by an
order dated 9.9. 1980 under Rule 12.21 volume 7 of the Punjab Police
Rules, 1934. The said Order is in the following terms:
"Lady Constable Rajinder Kaur No. 732 is unlikely to
prove an efficient police officer. She is, therefore, hereby
discharged from the Police Force Under P.P. 12.21 with
effect from today (9.9.1980).
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
502
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 3 S.C.R.
Issue orders in O.R. and all concerned to notice and neces-
sary action."
This order was made, it has been stated in the petition, without
serving any charge-sheet on her and without asking her to explain any
charge. The order also has not recorded any reason for her discharge
from service. Against this order the appellant made a representation
to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jullunder Range. The said
representation was rejected on 17.10.1980. The appellant filed a revi-
sion against the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police and
the same was also dismissed on 15.4.1981.Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.