Holding

The termination was lawful; Rule 12.8 does not apply to a temporary appointment and, without an express confirmation order, the probation is presumed to be extended.

Summary

Pratap Singh was appointed as a temporary Assistant Sub‑Inspector of Police on 2 July 1973. His services were terminated on 26 September 1977 by the Senior Superintendent of Police. He challenged the termination, arguing that Rule 12.8(1) of the Punjab Police Rules placed him on a three‑year probation, after which he should be deemed confirmed and could not be dismissed. The Supreme Court held that probation applies only to appointments against substantive vacancies; Singh was appointed against a temporary vacancy, so Rule 12.8 did not apply. Even assuming the rule applied, the rules contain no provision that presumes confirmation after the probation period, and, following State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, the probation is deemed extended. Consequently, the termination was lawful and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 12.8(1) of the Punjab Police Rules applies to a temporary appointment.
Whether the completion of a three‑year probation period automatically confers confirmation on the officer.
Whether the termination of the officer's services was illegal in the absence of an express confirmation order.

Legislation cited

Punjab Police Ruless. Rule 12.8(1)

Subjects

probationtemporary appointmentconfirmationtermination of servicePunjab Police Rulesadministrative lawservice rules

Judgment

487
)
PRATAP SINGH
v.
UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ANR.
September 3, 1979
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P. S. KAILASAM AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] B
Punjab Police Rules-Rule 12.8(1)-Appointment on a temporary basis
against a temporary vacancy-Services terminated after three years-Termina-
tion-Validity of..

The services of the appellant, who was appointed as an Assistant Sub-
Inspector of Police on July 2. 1973 were terminated in September 1977. The C
High Court rejected his petition impugning the ordf;r of termination of his
services. (

In appeal to this Court it was contended that on completion of the three
year period of probation in accordance with r. 12.8 ( 1) of the Punjab Police
Rules the appellant should be deemed to have been confirmed in the post
and that the order terminating his services was illegal.
D
Dismissing the appeal,

HELD : There is no legal error in the order passed by the Senior Superin~
.._ tendent of Police terminating the appellant's services. [490C]

1. It is well settled that a person is appointed on probation only when he is E
appointed against a substantive post. The appellant, having been appOinted
against a temporary vacancy, \Vas not on probation. Rule 12.8, which' deals
with officials appointed on probation, does not apply to this case. [489 F·G]
I
2. Assuming that r. 12.8 ·was applicable, the officer could not be deemed
to be confirmed unless there is any rule providing that, in the absence of an
order of confirmation at the end of the probation, the employee must be F
presumed to be confirmed. There is no such provision in the present rules
and hence the period of probation must be presumed to have been ext'ended.
[489G]

3. In the State of Punja& v. Dharam Singh, [1968] 3 SCR 1 this Court
held that when a first appointment is made on probation for a specific period
and the employee is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of the G
period \Vithoiit any specific order of confirmation he should be deemed to
continue in his post as a probationer only in the absence of any indication
to the contrary in the original order of appointment or the Service Rules.
In such a case, an express order of confirmation is necessary to give the
employee a substantive right to the post. [489B:CJ

In the instant case since no order of confirmation had been passed after B
the appellant completed three years, it must be presumed that his probation
bad been extended.
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

State of Puniab v. Dharam Singh [1968] 3 SCR applied.
(1980] 1 S.C.R.
,,
Supdt. of Police Ludhiana and Anr. v. Dwar.ka Das etc. etc. A.LR. 1979
S.C. 336 over-ruled.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 924 of 1970.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
19-10-1977 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ
Petition No. 3219/77.
Appellant in person.
JI. S. Marwah, R. N. Sachthey and A. Sachthey for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J. This appea1 by special leave is direded against the
judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissing the Writ
Petition filed by the appellant against the order of bis termination
passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police.. The appellant was
appointed on 2-7-1973 as a temporary Assistant Sub-Inspector of
II) Police. On 26-9-1977, his services were terminated by the Senior
Superintendent of Police. Against this order, the appellant moved the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana but his petition was rejected.
Thereafter, he came to this Court and after obtaining special leave
from this Court, the appeal has been placed ·before us for hearing.
The short point taken by the appellant in this appeal is that under
E
Rule 12.8(1) of Punjab Police Rules, the petitioner must be con-
sidered to be on probation for a period of three years and as the
appellant has crossed this period of three years, he must be deemed
to have been confirmed and, therefore, his services could not be termi-
nated. In support of this submission, reliance is placed by the appellant
F on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in case of The Superin-
tendent of Police, Ludhiana and Anr. etc. etc. v. Dwarka Das etc.
etc.(I) Where Shinghal J. speaking for the Court observed as
follows:-
"So if Rules 12.2(3) and 12.21 are read together, it

G
will appear that the maximum period of probation in the case •
of a police officer of the rank of constable is three years, for
the Superintendent of Police concerned has the power to
discharge him within that period. It follows that the power
of discharge cannot be exercised under Rule 12.21 after the
expiry of the period of three years."
B It is true that the observations made by this Court support the
contention of the appellant to an extent. But in our opinion, the
(I) A.LR. 1979 SC. 336.
PRATAP SINGH v. UNION TERRITORY (Fazal Ali, J.) 489

Division Bench decision was not correctly decided as it has not A.
considered the Five Bench decision of this Court in case of State o.f
Punjab v. Dharam Singh(') where after considering the number of cases,
the Court observed thus :

"This Court has consistently held that when a first
appointment or promotion is made on probation for a speci- B
fic period and the employee is allowed to continue in the
post after the expiry of the period without any specific order
of confirmation, he should be deemed to continue in his
• post as a probationer only, in the absence of any indication
to the contrary in the original order of appointment or
promotion or the service rules. In such a case, an express
c-
order of confirmation is necessary to give the employee a
substantive right to the post, and from the mere fact that he
is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of the
specified period of probation it is not possible to hold that
he should. be deemed to have been confirmed.
I>·
The reason for this conclusion is that where on the
completion of the specifi.ed period of probation the employee
is allowed to continue in the post without an order of con-
firnrntion, the only possible view to take in the absence of
anything to the contrary in the original order of appoint-
ment or promotion or the service rules, is that the initial E
period of probation has been extended by necessary impli-
cation."
In the instant case, the appellant was appointed purely on a
temporary basis and not on probation and, therefore, Rule 12.8 which
deals with officials who are appointed on probation does not apply to
this case at all. It is well settled that a person· is appointed on
probation only if he is appointed against a substantive vacancy. In the
instant case, it is not disputed that the appellant was appointed only
against a temporary vacancy. Assuming, however, that Rule 12.8 of
the Punjab Police Rules applies to the appellant's case and he is
governed by Rule 12.8 even after the probation of three years is ave(,
the police officer shall not be deemed to be confirmed unless there is
any rule \vhich provides that in abse.nce of an order of confirmation
at the end of the probation, the employee must be presumed to be
confirmed. There is no such provision in the present rules. In these
circumstances, therefore, as held by this Court in the case of Dharam
Singh, it must be held that if no express order of confirmation was
'
,(!) [1968] 3 S.C.R. I, 4-5.
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] l S.C.R.

A passed after the appellant completed three years, it must be presumed .
that bis probation was extended.
In this view of the matter, as the appellant was a temporary hand,
the services could be terminated at any time. It appears that the
attention of this Court is Dwarka Dqs's case was not drawn to thtl
• case of State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh (supra) which has been
decided by a larger Bench and therefore, the later decision rendered
by this Court in Dwarka Das is directly opposed to the view taken by
the larger Bench antd must, therefore, be overruled. For these reasons,
therefore, we are unable to find any legal error in the order passed by
the Senior Superintendent of Police in terminating the services of the
appellant.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
A request has been made by the appellant _that he may be allowed
to retain the Govt. quarter which has been allotted to him for some
time so as to enable him to find alternative accommodation. Mr.
Marwah, Counsel for the State, has no objection if a reasonable time
is given to the appellant for this purpose. We, therefore, give three
months' time to the appellant to vacate the government quarter
allotted to him_ on bis furnishing an undertaking to the Sr. Supdt. of
Police.

P.B.R. Appeal dismissed