STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus SUKHWINDER SINGH

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 580 · Decided: 14-07-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STA TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
v. 
SUKHWINDER SINGH 
JULY 14, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Punjab Police Rules: Rules 12.2_1 and 16.24 (ix). 
Probationer-Absence from duty-Discharge from service-Validity-
Constable on probation discharged from service due to unauthorized absence 
from duty-High Court held that absence from duty was a misconduct and 
the discharge order amounted to punishment imposed on the said constable 
D without holding a formal enquiry under R. 16.24 (ix) and, therefore, set aside 
the discharge order as being wholly illegal and contrary to law-Correctness 
of-Held: A probationer is on test and a temporary employee has no right 
to the post-The employer has a right to dispense with the services of an 
employee without anything more during or at the end of the probation 
period-Jn the present case, a simple order of discharge had been passed-
E The High Court erred in holding that the constable's absence from duty was 
the foundation of the order which necessitated an inquiry under R. 16.24 
(ix)-High Court judgment set aside. 
The respondent was appointed as a police constable and he absented from 
duty without making any application for grant of leave or seeking permission 
F for his absence. The respondent was, therefore, discharged from service 
under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules as he was not likely to become 
an efficient police officer. 
The respondent filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the discharge 
order was illegal and inoperative in law as it was passed by way of punishment, 
G without holding any enquiry and without giving him any opportunity of hearing. 
H 
The appellant contended that the respondent had put in less than three years 
of service and was a probationer on the date of passing of the discharge order 
and, therefore, he was rightly discharged under the Rules. The trial court 
decreed the suit which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. In second 
580 
;,. . 
... 
ST A TE OF PUNJAB v. SUKHWINDER SINGH 
581 
appeal, the lligh Court held that absence from duty was a misconduct and the A 
.~ discharge order was a punishment which was imposed upon the respondent 
without holding a formal inquiry under Rule 16.24 (ix) of the Rules and set 
aside the discharge order as being wholly illegal and contrary to law. Hence 
the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H~LD: 1. It must be borne in mind that no employee whether a 
probationer or temporary will be discharged or reverted arbitrarily, without 
B 
any rhyme or reason. Where a superior officer, in order to satisfy himself 
whether the employee concerned should be continued in service or not, makes 
inquiries for this purpose, it would be wrong to hold that the inquiry which C 
was held, was really intended for the purpose of imposing punishment. If in 
··every case where some kind of fact-finding inquiry is made, wherein the 
employee is either given an opportunity to explain or the inquiry is held behind 
his back, it is held that the order of discharge or termination from service is 
punitive in nature, even a bona fide attempt by the superior officer to decide D 
/ whether the employee concerned should be retained in service or not would 
run the risk of being dubbed as an order of punishment. The decision to 
discharge a probationer during the period of probation or the order to 
terminate the service of a temporary employee is taken by the appointing 
authority or administrative heads of various departments, who area not 
judicially trained people. The superior authorities of the departments have to E 
take work from an employee and they are the best people to judge whether an 
employee should be continued in service and.made a permanent employee or 
not having regard to his performance, conduct and overall suitability for the 
job. A probationer is on test and a temporary employee has no right to the 
post. If mere holding of an inquiry to ascertain the relevant facts for arriving F 
at a decision on objective considerations whether to continue the employee in 
service or to make him permanent is treated as an inquiry "for the purpose 
of imposing punishment" and an order of discharge or termination of service 
as a result thereof "punitive in character", the fundamental difference between 
a probationer or a temporary employee and a permanent employee would be 
completely obliterated, which would be wholly wrong. (592-F-H; 593-A-C] 
G 
S

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