Holding

A discharge under Rule 12.21 without affording the officer a hearing is vitiated by manifest error of law, and the High Court's reinstatement order is set aside.

Summary

Jagdish Chander, appointed as a constable on 30 October 1985, was discharged on 1 June 1992 under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules for alleged habitual absenteeism, negligence and indiscipline. He challenged the discharge before the High Court, which set aside the order and directed his reinstatement with full benefits. The State appealed, arguing that the discharge was valid. The Supreme Court held that the discharge order was a "discharge simplicitor" that required the officer to be given an opportunity to be heard, and the failure to do so amounted to a manifest error of law. Consequently, the High Court's reinstatement order was set aside, and the State was directed to give a show‑cause notice and pass an appropriate order within two months. The main appeal was allowed, while related appeals were disposed of as indicated.

Issues considered

Whether a discharge under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules requires compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Whether the High Court could directly order reinstatement with consequential benefits without a fresh inquiry.
Whether the discharge order was a "discharge simplicitor" and the legal consequences thereof.

Legislation cited

Punjab Police Ruless. Rule 12.21

Subjects

Service LawPolice DisciplineNatural JusticeDischarge SimplicitorPunjab Police RulesReinstatementProcedural Fairness

Judgment

A STATE OF HARY ANA AND ANR.
v.
JAGDISH CHANDER

JANUARY 13, 1995
B
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. C. SEN, JJ.]

Service Law : Punjab Police Rules

Rule 12.21-Constable-Discharge from service within 3 years of enrol-
c ment-Grounds on which order of discharge proposed to be passed-Not
communicated--Opportunity not afforded-Held, discharge vitiated by
manifest e1ror of law.

The respondent was appointed as a Constable on October 30, 1985.
D As he was absent from duty from April 20, 1992 to May 15, 1992, he was
discharged from service under rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules. Respon-
dent challenged it before the High Court, which allowed the writ petit~on,
set aside the order and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent
with continuity of service and consequential benefits. Hence this appeal by
the State. In the other two appeals also, the facts were similar.
E
Allowing the main appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. It is clear from the order of discharge that it is not an
order of discharge simplicitor. On the other hand, the S.P. Considered the
p record and found the respondent to be habitual absentee, negligent in his
duty and indisciplined. The findings of habitual absence and indiscipline
necessarily cast stigma on his career and they would be an impediment for
any of future employment elsewhere. Under those circumstances, the prin-
ciples of natural justice do require that he should be given an opportunity
to explain the grounds on which the S.P. proposes to pass an order of
G discharge and then to consider the explanation submitted by the police
officer. Then the S.P. is competent to pass appropriate orders according
to the rules. Since this part of the procedure had not been adopted, the
order of discharge is vitiated by manifest error of law. However, the High
Court was not justified in straightaway setting aside the order and direct-
H ing reinstatement with consequential benefits. [254-F-H, 255-A]
252
\

~

STATE v. JAGDISH CHANDER 253

2. The order of the High Court is set aside. It would be open to the A
appellant, if so advised, to give an opportunity to show cause, to the
respondents; consider their objections and pass appropriate orders within
a period of two months.

Kanmakar v. E.C.I.L. Hyderabad, [1993] 4 SCC 727, followed.
B
As regards the connected case, this is allowed C.A. No. 1089/95 but
dismissed C.A. No. 1090/95 as the discharge order in this case was in-
nocuous but based on record.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1088 and
~~~- c
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.1.93 & 4.11.92 of the Punjab
& Haryana Court in C.W.P. No. 12183 & 9175 of 1992.

V.R. Reddy Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Ayesh Khatri for Ms.
Indu Malhotra for the State. D
K.R. Nagaraja for the Appellant.

Mahabir Singh for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : E

Leave granted.

For the disposal of the point m controversy the facts in C.A.
No.1088/95@ SLP (C) No. 9649/93 lie i~:a short compass are as under:
F
The respondent, Jagdish Chander, was appointed as a constable on
October 30, 1985. Since he was absent from duty from April 20, 1992 to
May 15, 1992, by proceedings dated 1.1.1992, he was discharged from
service as a constable, exercising the power under rule 12.21 ot the Punjab
Police Rules, (for short, 'the Rules'). The respondent impugned its validity G
in CWP No. 12183i92. The High Court by its order dated. 14.1.1993
allowed the writ petition, set aside the order and directed the appellant to
reinstate the respondent with continuity of the service and consequential
benefits. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

Rule 12.21 read thus : H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A "A constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police
officer may be discharged by the Superintendent at any time within
three years of enrollment. There shall be no appeal against an
order of discharge under this rule."

A reading of this rule would indicate that the Superintendent of
B Police, before expiry of three years from the date of enrollment of the
police officer into the service, has been obviously given power to observe
the conduct and discharge of service by the police officer to firid him
whether he was efficient in the discharge of duties and maintains tJi.e
discipline and conduct expected of him as a disciplined police offieer.
c During that period if the S.P. finds that he is unlikely to prove an efficient
police officer, exercising the power under the rule, he may discharge
simplicitor the police officer from service. For recording the finding that
the officer is unlikely to prove an efficient police officer, there must be
anterior record and the Superintendent of Police must objectively consider
that record and record the conclusion in that behalf. But if he records a
D finding, after considering the record, which would be a stigma on the
carrier of the discharged police officer, it is settled law that the principles
of natural justice require that an opportunity be given to him before
recording finding adverse to the officer's conduct which disentitles the
officer for any future employment or would be blot on his carrier. The
order of discharge reads thus :
E
"Const. Jagdish Chander No. 3/460 is hereby discharged under PP
12.21 with immediate effect i.e. 1.6.92 AN. as he is unlikely to
prove an efficient police officer because he is habitual absentee
negligent to his duty and indisciplined."
F
It would thus be clear .from the order of discharge that it is not an
order of discharge simplicitor. On the other hand, the S.P. considered the
record and found him to be habitual absentee, negligent to his duty and
indisciplined. The findings of habitual absence and indisciplined necessari-
ly cast stigma on his carrier and they would be an impediment for any of
G future employment elsewhere. Under those circumstances, the principles
of natural justice do require that he should be given an opportunity to
explain the grounds on which the S.P. proposes to pass an order of
discharge and then to consider the explantaion submitted by the police
officer. Then the S.P. is competent to pass appropriate orders according
H to the rules. Since this part of the procedure had not been adopted, the
STATE v. JAGDISH CHANDER 255

order of discharge is vitiated by manifest error of law. A
However, the High Court was not justified in Straightaway setting
aside the order and directing reinstatement with consequential benefits. In
view of the Judgment of this Court by a Constitution Bench in Kamnakar
v. E.C.l.L., Hyderabad, the appropriate course for the State would be to
direct an inquiry if they intend to hold and to give an opportunity to the B
officer concerned to defend himself and then pass appropriate orders. On
the basis of this result of the enquiry necessary reliefs need to be moulded.

In this view, the order of the High Court is set asidt<. Jt would be
open to the appellant, if so advise, to give an opportunity to show cause to
the respondents; consider their objections and pass appropriate orders C
within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the order.

The appeal No. 1088/95 (@ SLP No. 9649/93) is accordingly allowed
but, in the circumstances, without costs.

In Civil Appeal No. 1089/95 (@ SLP (C) No. 14881/93,) pursuant to D
... ,._ the directions issued by the Tribunal since the respondent- Nathu Ram has
already been taken into service and he is continuing, he would continue in
service till appropriate orders are pa&sed. The appeal is allow~d.

C.A. No. 1090/95 @ SLP (C) No. 17909/93
E
Leave granted.

In view of the above law, the appeal is dismissed since the discharge
innocuous but based on record. No costs.

G.N. Main appeal allowed.