LexTHE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS versus JASWANT SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
CASE DETAILS THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS v. JASWANT SINGH (Civil Appeal No. 11871 of 2014) SEPTEMBER 05, 2023 [J. K. MAHESHWARI AND K. V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Issue arose as regards the justifi cation of the discharge order of the probationer constable by the Superitendent of Police due to prolonged absence from training without any intimation. Service Law – Punjab Police Rules, 1934 – r. 12.21 – Discharge order of probationary constable u/r. 12.21 by Superitendent of Police owing to his prolonged absence from duty without any intimation – Legality of: Held: It is clear from r. 12.21 that in case a probationary constable is found unlikely to prove an effi cient police offi cer, he may be discharged by the Senior Superintendent of Police-SSP at any time within three years from the date of enrolment – On facts, discharge order was passed on the recommendation of the supervisory authority due to prolonged absence from training without any intimation – Authority found that the probationer constable has no interest in training, and no sense of responsibility, thus, he cannot prove himself a good, effi cient police offi cer – All the three courts misconstrued r. 12.21 and decreed the suit fi led by the probationer – Looking to the contents of the discharge order, there is no foundation of misconduct alleged in the order and it is an order of simpliciter discharge of a probationer constable – Thus, the view taken by the High Court and also by the two courts below that the discharge of probationer constable was illegal, is erroneous in law and is set-aside. [Paras 18 - 21] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary v. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar and Others, (2015) 15 SCC 151 : [2015] 10 SCR 717 – distinguished. [2023] 11 S.C.R. 822 : 2023 INSC 798 822 823 State of Punjab and Others v. Sukhwinder Singh (2005) 5 SCC 569 : [2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 580; State of Punjab and others v. Constable Avtar Singh (2008) 7 SCC 405; Amar Kumar v. State of Bihar and Others (2013) 4 PLJR 269; Sher Singh, Ex-Constable v. State of Haryana & Ors. 1994 SCC Online P&H 166; Superintendent of Police v. Dwarka Das (1979) 3 SCC 789 : [1979] 2 SCR 405; State of Punjab and Others v. Balbir Singh (2004) 11 SCC 743 : [2004] 4 Suppl. SCR 368; Ravindra Kumar Misra v. U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. and Another (1987) Supp SCC 739 : [1988] SCR 501; Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sci-ences and Another (2002) 1 SCC 520 : [2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 41 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11871 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2010 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No.3765 of 2002. WITH Civil Appeal No. 11634 of 2014. Appearances: Karan Sharma, Mohit Siwach, Advs. for the Appellants. Yadav Narender Singh, Jagdish Parshad, Mayank Kumar Singh, Advs. for the Respondent. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT J. K. MAHESHWARI, J. 1. In the present appeals, respondent Jaswant Singh was recruited as a constable with Punjab Police. During probation, he was discharged from the services by Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar (hereinafter referred THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS v. JASWANT SINGH 824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 11 S.C.R. to as “S.S.P.”) in exercise of power under Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as “PPR”). Challenging the same, the respondent-plaintiff fi led a suit, which was partly decreed by the Trial Court and the discharge order was held to be illegal on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. Assailing the same, the appellants/State preferred fi rst appeal before Additional District Judge, Amritsar. Simultaneously, the respondent-plaintiff also fi led a fi rst appeal and sought relief of mandatory injunction on the ground that since the order discharging him from services was not found legally sustainable, therefore, he should be allowed to join duty and should be granted all the consequential benefi ts. The fi rst appellate Court by common judgment dismissed the appeal fi led by State and allowed the appeal of the respondent-plaintiff holding him entitled to receive all service benefi ts as accrued. 3. Challenging the common judgment passed by the fi rst appellate Court, two regular second appeals
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.