STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. versus JAGDISH CHANDER

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 252 · Decided: 13-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S.C. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
ST ATE OF HARY ANA AND ANR. 
v. 
JAGDISH CHANDER 
JANUARY 13, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. C. SEN, JJ.] 
Service Law : Punjab Police Rules 
Rule 12.21-Constable-Discharge from service within 3 years of enrol-
ment-Grounds on which order of discharge proposed to be passed-Not 
communicated--Opportunity not afforded-Held, discharge vitiated by 
manifest e1ror of law. 
The respondent was appointed as a Constable on October 30, 1985. 
D As he was absent from duty from April 20, 1992 to May 15, 1992, he was 
discharged from service under rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules. Respon-
dent challenged it before the High Court, which allowed the writ petit~on, 
set aside the order and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent 
with continuity of service and consequential benefits. Hence this appeal by 
E 
the State. In the other two appeals also, the facts were similar. 
Allowing the main appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. It is clear from the order of discharge that it is not an 
order of discharge simplicitor. On the other hand, the S.P. Considered the 
p 
record and found the respondent to be habitual absentee, negligent in his 
duty and indisciplined. The findings of habitual absence and indiscipline 
necessarily cast stigma on his career and they would be an impediment for 
any of future employment elsewhere. Under those circumstances, the prin-
ciples of natural justice do require that he should be given an opportunity 
to explain the grounds on which the S.P. proposes to pass an order of 
G discharge and then to consider the explanation submitted by the police 
officer. Then the S.P. is competent to pass appropriate orders according 
to the rules. Since this part of the procedure had not been adopted, the 
order of discharge is vitiated by manifest error of law. However, the High 
Court was not justified in straightaway setting aside the order and direct-
H ing reinstatement with consequential benefits. [254-F-H, 255-A] 
252 
\ 
~ 
STATE v. JAGDISH CHANDER 
253 
2. The order of the High Court is set aside. It would be open to the A 
appellant, if so advised, to give an opportunity to show cause, to the 
respondents; consider their objections and pass appropriate orders within 
a period of two months. 
Kanmakar v. E.C.I.L. Hyderabad, [1993] 4 SCC 727, followed. 
As regards the connected case, this is allowed C.A. No. 1089/95 but 
dismissed C.A. No. 1090/95 as the discharge order in this case was in-
nocuous but based on record. 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1088 and 
~~~-
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.1.93 & 4.11.92 of the Punjab 
& Haryana Court in C.W.P. No. 12183 & 9175 of 1992. 
V.R. Reddy Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Ayesh Khatri for Ms. 
Indu Malhotra for the State. 
D 
K.R. Nagaraja for the Appellant. 
Mahabir Singh for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
E 
Leave granted. 
For the disposal of the point m controversy the facts in C.A. 
No.1088/95@ SLP (C) No. 9649/93 lie i~:a short compass are as under: 
F 
The respondent, Jagdish Chander, was appointed as a constable on 
October 30, 1985. Since he was absent from duty from April 20, 1992 to 
May 15, 1992, by proceedings dated 1.1.1992, he was discharged from 
service as a constable, exercising the power under rule 12.21 ot the Punjab 
Police Rules, (for short, 'the Rules'). The respondent impugned its validity G 
in CWP No. 12183i92. The High Court by its order dated. 14.1.1993 
allowed the writ petition, set aside the order and directed the appellant to 
reinstate the respondent with continuity of the service and consequential 
benefits. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
Rule 12.21 read thus : 
H 
A 
B 
c 
254 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 1 S.C.R. 
"A constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police 
officer may be discharged by the Superintendent at any time within 
three years of enrollment. There shall be no appeal against an 
order of discharge under this rule." 
A reading of this rule would indicate that the Superintendent of 
Police, before expiry of three years from the date of enrollment of the 
police officer into the service, has been obviously given power to observe 
the conduct and discharge of service by the police officer to firid him 
whether he was efficient in the discharge of duties and maintains tJi.e 
discipline and conduct expected of him as a disciplined police offieer. 
During that period if the S.P. finds that he is unlikely to prove an efficient 

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