LexSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus BALBIR SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ST A TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
v.
BALBIR SINGH
SEPTEMBER 13, 2004
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.]
Service Law:
Termination of Services-Police Constable consumed liquor and
misbehaved with a lady Constable-Medical examination done-No proper
inquiry held-Order of discharge under Punjab Police Rules 12.21 passed-
Termination order-Simplicitor or punitive-Held, termination was not
founded on the misconduct-Hence not punitive.
Punjab Police Rules, 1934-Rule 12.21-0rder of discharge-Police
Constable found unlikely to prove to be efficient police officer since he has
consumed liquor and misbehaved with lady police constable-Discharged
from service-Held, order was termination simplicitor and valid.
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 311:
Discharge from service without proper enquiry-Where the motive
behind the preliminary enquiry is not to determine the misconduct but merely
to determine the suitability of employee for a particular job, the_ discharge
order cannot be held punitive.
Respondent was appointed a Constable. He was found consuming
liquor and misbehaving with a ~ady constable. -He was discharged by
order of Senior Superintendent of Police passed under Rule 12.21 of
Punjab Police Rules, 1934. In suit filed by respondent, Civil Court held
termination order to be illegal, null and void and set it aside. Appeal
filed by State was dismissed. In second appeal, High Court held the
order of discharge violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of
India. Hence, this appeal by State.
The question involved is whether the order of discharge was punitive
and, therefore, illegal having been passed without conducting any
H
disciplinary inquiry.
368
ST A TE v. BALBIR SINGH
369
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1. The order of discharge simplicitor, prima facie, is not
punitive, it being in terms of Punjab Police rule 12.21 but the question
is whether the incident which led to the passing of that order was motive
A
or inducing factor or was the foundation of order of discharge. The test
B
to determine whether the incident is motive or the foundation of an
order of discharge is to ask question as to what was the 'object of
enquiry' into incident. If an enquiry or an assessment is done with the
object of finding out any misconduct on the part of the employee and
for t~reason his services are terminated, then it would be punitive in
nature. On the other hand, if such an enquiry or an assessment is aimed
at determining the suitability of an employee for a particular job, such
termination would be termination simplicitor. (373-D-E; 375-C-D)
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, [1958) SCR 828; Radhey
Shyam Gupta v. UP. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd & Anr., (1999)
2 SCC 21; State ofOrissa v. Ram Narayan Das, [1961) 1SCR606; Mathew
B. Thomas v. Kera/a State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. & Ors., (2003) 3
SCC 263 and Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical
Science & Anr., [2002] 1 SCC 520, referred to.
1.2. In present case respondent consumed liquor and misbehaved
with a lady constable. He was medically examined. On this basis, coming
to the conclusion that he was unlikely to prove himself an efficient Police
Officer, an order of discharge under Punjab Police Rule, 12.21 was
passed. There was no stigma of punishment. The nature of enquiry was
preliminary and not a full scale formal enquiry so as to lead to the
inference that the object of enquiry is to determine the guilt of the
respondent. [377-D-E, F-G]
2. The order of termination cannot be held to be punitive in nature.
The misconduct on behalf of the respondent was not the inducing factor
for the termination of respondent. The preliminary enquiry was not done
with the object offinding out any misconduct on the part of the respondent,
. it was done only with a view to determine the suitability of the respondent
within the meaning of Punjab Police Rules 12.21. The termination was not
based on the misconduct but the behaviour with a lady Constable and
consumption ofliquor in office were considered to determine the suitability
c
D
E
F
G
H
370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
of the respondent for the job, in the light of standards of discipline
expected from police personnel. {378-G-H; 379-A-B]
B
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh, (2002] 9 SCC 636, relied
on.
Smt. Rajinder Kaur v. State of Punjab & Anr., (1986) 4 SCC 14Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.