SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LUDHIANA & ANR. versus DWARKA DAS ETC.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 405 · Decided: 28-11-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. SHINGAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~·· 
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LUDHIANA & ANR. 
v. 
DWARKA DAS ETC. 
November 28. 1978 
[P. N. SHINGHAL AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.J 
405 
Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 12-21. power of discharge, whether exer· 
cisable beyond 3 years ten1porary service of police officers. 
The respondent writ pet.itioners were constables of the Punjab State Go· 
vernment, and had put in more than 3 'Years service, when they \Vere dis· 
-charged for inefficiency, under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. 
A 
B 
The High Court allov.'ed their writ petitions •challenging the validity of their 
discharge-orders. 
It \Vas contended by the Stat.e that although the respondents 
C 
had put in Rlore than three years service, their appointments \Vere temporary 
and could be terminated for that reason, even if the termination could not 
strictly b.:! said to fall within the purview of rule 12.21. 
Dismissine the appeal, the Court 
HELD : If rules 12.2(3) and 12.21 are read together, it will appear that 
1he maximum period of probation in the case of a police officer of the rank 
of \constable is three years and the pt)v.'er of discharge cannot be exercised 
.under rule 12.21 after expiry of that period. 
If ;it. is proposed to deal \Vith 
an inefficient police officer after the expiry of three years, it is necessary to 
do so in as.cordance \Vith the ndes of Chapter XVI of the Rules which makes 
provision for the imposition of various punishments including dismissal from 
the police force. 
[408A-B] 
The High Court was not justified in holding that a constable \'i'ho had 
obtained a certitica•te under rule 12.32 cannot be dealt \Vith under rule 12.21 
1'hat certificate is meant to serve the purpose of section 8 of the Police Act . 
.1861, by ve!ting a public officer with the po\vers, functions and 'privileges of 
.a police officer and has to be issued on his appointment as such. The certificate 
is 1a letter of authority nnd enables the police officer to enter upon his duties 
D 
E 
·as a police officer. 
It has to be granted almost ~rom the inception and it is 
F 
not correct to say t.hat the mere issue of the certificate puts its holder beyond 
the reach of rule 12.21 even if it is found that he is unlikely to prove nn 
,efficient police officer and has not completed the period of ~hree years of his 
enrolment. [ 4080-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1286, 1287 
and 2511 of 19e9-
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20-8-1968 and 3-4-1969 of 
the Punjab aud Haryana High 
Court in Civil Writ Nos.800/66, 
2625/65 and LPA No 141 of 1969. 
Harbans Singh and R. N. Sachth•y for the Appellant in all 
the 
appeals. 
H 
E. C. Agarwala and M. L. Srivastava for the Respondent in C.A. 
1286/69. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1979] 2 S.C.R. 
H. K. Puri for the Respondent in C. A. 1287169 
N. N. Keswani for the Respondent in C.A. 2511/69 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHINGIIAL, J. 
These three appeals by certificates granted by the· 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana are directed against two 
judg-
ments of that court dated August 20, 1966, and another judgment of 
that court dated November 22, 1968. The High Court first decided thee 
writ petition of constable Dwarka Das, which is the subject matter of 
appeal No.1286 of 1969, and disposed of the other two writ petitions, 
which are the subject matter of appeals Nos. 1287 and 2511 of 1969, 
on the basis of that judgment. 
These three appeals therefore raise 
common questions of l'!'V and have been he~rd together at the request 
of learned counsel for the parties and will be disposed of by a com-
mon judgment. 
The writ petitioners in all the three cases were recruited as constables 
in the police-force of the Punjab State. It is not in dispute before 
us that (i) they were police-officers of the State, (ii) they were en-
rolled as police-officers, (iii) they had put in more than three years. 
service after their recruitment and enrolment as police-officers, 
and 
(iv) they were discharged under the provisions of rule 12.21 of the 
Punjab Police Rules, 1934, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and 
not by way of punishment under the provisions of Chapter XVI of 
the Rules. 
No attempt has been made to distinguish one case from 
the· other, on facts. 
On the other 
hand, learned counsel for 
the 
parties are in agreement that the facts of the three cases are quite 
similar and they raise the common question of law whether the orders. 
of discharge we
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.