SH. JAI KISHAN versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 268 · Decided: 10-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SH. JAi KISHAN 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR. 
APRIL 10, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND BL. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
Central Civil Services Temporary (Service) Rules, 1966: Rule 
5(e)(l)(ll)(iii) 
C 
Constable-Temporary appointmenl-i'robatio~Successful probation 
and confirmation a condition precedent for continuance in service-Unsatis-
factory performance during probatio~Termination of probation and 
removal-Order held valid-Held there was no deemed confirmation after 
expiry of period of probation. 
D 
The appellant was appointed as a temporary constable on September 
9, 1982. Under Rule 5(e) of the Central Services Temporary .<Service) 
Rules, 1966 he was required to be on probation for a period of two years 
which In no case was to extend beyond three years. On successful comple-
tion of probation he was to be conftrmed In the service. Therefore, conftr-
E matlon Into the service was a condltlon precedent to continue as a member 
of Delhi Police Service. The appellant continued In service upto September 
14, 1988 and on that date an order was passed under Rule S(e) terminating 
his services. He unsuccessfully questioned the termination order befm:"e the 
Central Administrative Tribunal. Against the decision of the Tribunal, an 
appeal was preferred to this Court. 
F 
The respondent's case was that appellant's retention in service was 
not considered desirable for the dlsclpllne or the police force because he 
was found to be a habitual absentee and Incorrigible type of police 
employee and this could have set a bad example to other employees. Insplte 
G of giving repeated opportunities to Improve, the appellant failed to Im-
prove his performance and consequently his services were terminated. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: Successful completion of probation Is a condition precedent 
H for conftrmatlon as envisaged In clause (Iii) of Rule S(e) of the Central 
268 
\ 
I 
-
JAi KISHAN v. COMMR. OF POLICE 
269 
CMI Services Temporary (Service) Rules, 1966. The authorities have A 
power to allow maximum period of 3 years of probation. In this case 
Instead of giving him three years, they have given long period of S years so 
as to see whether the appellant would improve his performance in the 
service. Since they found that there was no satisfactory improvement, his 
probation was terminated and he was removed from service as a B 
probationer. Under these circumstances, there is no illegality in the action 
taken by the respondents warranting interference. (271-B, CJ 
State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, AIR (1968) SC 1210, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5210 of C 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.93 of the Central Ad· 
ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in 0.A. No. 1969 of 1989. 
Mukul Gupta for the Appellant. 
V.C. Mahajan and S.N. Terdol for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
D 
E 
We have heard the counsel on both the sides. The appellant was 
appointed as a Temporary Constable on September 9, 1982. After his 
undergoing training, he was posted to 7th Bn. The Central Services Tem-
porary {Service) Rules, 1966 {for short 'the Rules') and other Rules as 
notified vide Delhi Administration's Notification No. 10/5/79 Home {P) F 
Establishment dated December 17, 1980 are applicable to the Service 
conditions of the appellant. He continued upto September 14, 19sB ~n.· 
which date the respondents issued and served an order under Rule 5(e) of 
the Rules terminating his services with the expiry of a period of one month 
from that date. The appellant when questioned the same in the Central G 
Administrative Tribunal in C.A. No. 1969/88, by order dated December 15, 
1993 it had dismissed the petition and his review application also was 
dismissed. Thus, this appeal. 
In the counter affidavit it was stated that from the perusal of his 
service record it was observed that the appellant had absented himself H 
270 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A willfully in unauthorised manner on 65 occasions from time to time during 
his entire service of six years and he was not found fit for issue of quasi 
permanency by various officers and was awarded punishment of censure 
and period of absence without pay after r,egular departmental enquiry. 
That the appellant was found habitual absentee and incorrigible type police 
employee and this could have set bad example to other employees of 
B uniformed force. The appellant had not shown

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