STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus RAJESH KUMAR

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 208 · Decided: 20-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
v. 
RAJESH KUMAR 
NOVEMBER 20, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Punjab Police Rules: 
Rule 12.21-Police constable-Discharged from service within three 
years of enrolment-Held, a simple order of discharge having been passed 
within the period of probation as the employee was not found suitable for 
the post, no opportunity of hearing was necessary-Orders of High Court 
D and all courts below holding the termination order as punitive in nature and 
based on misconduct, set aside-Administrative Law-Principles of natural 
justice-Opportunity of hearing. 
The respondent, a constable of police, was discharged from service under 
Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, within three years of enrolment. It 
E was also the case of the Department that the respondent being an unauthorized 
absentee, the Superintendent of Police found him unlike'y to prove an efficient 
police officer. However, the courts including the High Court held that the order 
of removal was based on misconduct and was punitive in nature and, therefore, 
opportunity of hearing was necessary. Aggrieved, the State Government filed 
the present appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, a simple order of discharge has been 
passed. It is not in dispute that the respondent was on probation. The period 
of probation gives any time an opportunity to the employer to watch the work, 
G ability, efficiency, sincerity and competence of the servant. The Department 
officials found the respondent not suitable for the post and, therefore, they 
always reserve a right to dispense with his services in any manner during or 
at the end of the prescribed period which is called period of probation. 
(210-D-E) 
H 
208 
· STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAJESH KUMAR [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 
209 
State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 7 JT 383, relied on. 
Sher Singh v. State of Haryana, (1994) 2 S.L.R. 100, approved. 
1.2. All the lower courts including the High Court were clearly in error 
in holding that the order of termination of service is based on misconduct of 
A 
the respondent and is punitive in nature. The High Court has failed to notice B 
that departmental enquiry is not required before passing an order under Rule 
12.21 of Punjab Police Rules to discharge a constable on ground of his 
unauthorised absence and being habitual absentee who is not suitable to become 
a police officer. Therefore, no opportunity of hearing is necessary as per law. 
The orders passed by all the courts below and also of the High Court are set C 
aside. (211-E, D, F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5090 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24-1-2006 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 1655/2005(0 & M). 
H.S. Mujral and Sanjay Jain for the Appellants. 
Suresh Kumari, N.K. Banke and A.P. Mohanty for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted. 
Heard learned counsel 1for the appellants and the respondent. 
We have perused the orders passed by the courts below and the 
D 
E 
relevant rules. 
F 
The respondent was appointed on 02.12.1989 as a Constable. He was 
discharged from service on 18. l 0.1992 under Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police 
Rules. Rule I 2.21 reads as under :-
"12.21. Discharge of inefficient: 
A constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police 
officer may be discharged by the Superintendent of police at any time 
within three years of enrolment. There shall be no appeal against an 
order of discharge under the rule" 
G 
H 
A 
210 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
It is also the case of the Department that the respondent being an 
unauthorised absentee, the Superintendent of Police found him unlikely to 
prove an efficient police officer as per high standard of discipline as being 
expected from police personnel. The above submission of the learned counsel 
for the appellants is supported by a recent decision of this Court in State of 
B Punjab & Ors. v. Sukhwinder Singh, (2005] 5 SCC 569, which is also a case 
of a police constable and the discharge of the said police officer before 
completion of probation period of three years. This Court held that a superior 
officer in order to satisfy himself whether the employee concerned should be 
continued in service or not may make an enquiry for this purpose. The 
superior officers of the Department have to take work from an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.