Holding

A discharge under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules is a simple administrative order, not punitive, and does not require a departmental enquiry or a hearing.

Summary

The respondent, Rajesh Kumar, a constable appointed on 2 December 1989, was discharged on 18 October 1992 under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules on the ground of unauthorized absenteeism and unsuitability. Lower courts, including the High Court, held that the discharge was punitive, based on misconduct, and therefore required a departmental enquiry and a hearing in accordance with natural justice. The State appealed, contending that the rule permits a simple discharge order without a hearing during the probation period. The Supreme Court held that a discharge under Rule 12.21 is a non‑punitive administrative action aimed at assessing suitability, and no departmental enquiry or hearing is required. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the lower courts and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a discharge order under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules is punitive in nature and thus requires a departmental enquiry and an opportunity of hearing under principles of natural justice.

Subjects

Service lawProbationDischargeNatural justiceHearingPunjab Police RulesAdministrative lawDisciplinary action

Judgment

A STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
v.
RAJESH KUMAR

NOVEMBER 20, 2006

B [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.]

Service Law:

Punjab Police Rules:
c
Rule 12.21-Police constable-Discharged from service within three
years of enrolment-Held, a simple order of discharge having been passed
within the period of probation as the employee was not found suitable for
the post, no opportunity of hearing was necessary-Orders of High Court
D and all courts below holding the termination order as punitive in nature and
based on misconduct, set aside-Administrative Law-Principles of natural
justice-Opportunity of hearing.

The respondent, a constable of police, was discharged from service under
Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, within three years of enrolment. It
E was also the case of the Department that the respondent being an unauthorized
absentee, the Superintendent of Police found him unlike'y to prove an efficient
police officer. However, the courts including the High Court held that the order
of removal was based on misconduct and was punitive in nature and, therefore,
opportunity of hearing was necessary. Aggrieved, the State Government filed
the present appeal.
F
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, a simple order of discharge has been
passed. It is not in dispute that the respondent was on probation. The period
of probation gives any time an opportunity to the employer to watch the work,
G ability, efficiency, sincerity and competence of the servant. The Department
officials found the respondent not suitable for the post and, therefore, they
always reserve a right to dispense with his services in any manner during or
at the end of the prescribed period which is called period of probation.
(210-D-E)

H 208
· STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAJESH KUMAR [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 209
State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 7 JT 383, relied on. A
Sher Singh v. State of Haryana, (1994) 2 S.L.R. 100, approved.

1.2. All the lower courts including the High Court were clearly in error
in holding that the order of termination of service is based on misconduct of
the respondent and is punitive in nature. The High Court has failed to notice B
that departmental enquiry is not required before passing an order under Rule
12.21 of Punjab Police Rules to discharge a constable on ground of his
unauthorised absence and being habitual absentee who is not suitable to become
a police officer. Therefore, no opportunity of hearing is necessary as per law.
The orders passed by all the courts below and also of the High Court are set C
aside. (211-E, D, F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5090 of2006.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24-1-2006 of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 1655/2005(0 & M).
D
H.S. Mujral and Sanjay Jain for the Appellants.

Suresh Kumari, N.K. Banke and A.P. Mohanty for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the court was delivered by
E
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel 1for the appellants and the respondent.

We have perused the orders passed by the courts below and the
relevant rules. F
The respondent was appointed on 02.12.1989 as a Constable. He was
discharged from service on 18. l 0.1992 under Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police
Rules. Rule I2.21 reads as under :-

"12.21. Discharge of inefficient: G
A constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police
officer may be discharged by the Superintendent of police at any time
within three years of enrolment. There shall be no appeal against an
order of discharge under the rule"
H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A It is also the case of the Department that the respondent being an
unauthorised absentee, the Superintendent of Police found him unlikely to
prove an efficient police officer as per high standard of discipline as being
expected from police personnel. The above submission of the learned counsel
for the appellants is supported by a recent decision of this Court in State of
B Punjab & Ors. v. Sukhwinder Singh, (2005] 5 SCC 569, which is also a case
of a police constable and the discharge of the said police officer before
completion of probation period of three years. This Court held that a superior
officer in order to satisfy himself whether the employee concerned should be
continued in service or not may make an enquiry for this purpose. The •
superior officers of the Department have to take work from an employee and
C they are the best people to judge whether an employee should continue 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.

ln the instant case, a simple order of discharge has been passed. It is
D not in dispute that the respondent was on probation having been appointed
on 02.12.1989 and discharged on 18.10.1992. The period of probation gives
any time an opportunity to the employer to watch the work, ability, efficiency,
sincerity and competence of the servant. In the instant case, the Department
officials found the respondent not suitable for the post and, therefore, they
E always reserve a right to dispense with his services in any manner during or
at the end of the prescribed period which is called period of probation.

In a similar case titled State of Punjab v. J(albir Singh, 2004 (7) JT 383
in which a constable was discharged from service under Rule 12.21 on the
basis of specific charge of consumption of liquor in office and misbehaviour
F with a lady constable and this Court while affirming the order of discharge
passed the following order :

"Order of termination cannot be held to be punitive in nature. The
misconduct on behalf of the respondent was not the inducing factor
for the termination of the respondent. The preliminary enquiry was not
G done with the object of finding out misconduct on the part of the
respondent it was done only with a view to determine the suitability
of the respondent within the meaning of Punjab Police Rules 12.21.
The termination was not founded on the misconduct but the ,
misbehaviour with a lady constable and consumption of liquor in
office were considered to determine the suitability of the respondent
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAJESH KUMAR [LAKSHMANAN, .I.] 211

for the job, in the light of the standard of discipline expected from A
police personnel."

The Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has held in the
case of Sher Singh v. State of Haryana, (1994) 2 S.L.R. Page 100 that a
consta.ble can be discharged from service under Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police
Rules, 1934 at any time within three years of his enrolment in spite of the fact B
that there is a specific allegation which may even amount to misconduct
against him. It was further held by the Full Bench that a Superintendent of
Police can form his opinion on police officer not only on the basis of the
periodic reports contemplated under Rule 19.5 but also on the basis of any
other relevant material. In view of the above decision, the constable can be C
discharged from service even ifthere is specific allegation which may amount:
to misconduct against him.

The High Court, in our opinion, has also failed to notice that departmental
enquiry is not required before passing an order under Rule 12.21 of Punjab
Police Rules to discharge a constable on ground of his unauthorised absence D
and being habitual absentee who is not suitable to become a police officer.

All the Courts below are not right in observing that the order of
discharge dated 18. l 0.1992 passed by the Senior superintendent of Police is
based on misconduct of the respondent and, therefore, no opportunity of
hearing is necessary as per paw. E
In our opinion, all the lower courts including the High Court was clearly
in error in holding that the order of termination of service is punitive in nature.
We, therefore, allow the appeal filed by the appellants and set aside the orders
passed by all the courts below and also of the High Court.
F
No costs.

RP. Appeal allowed .

'··
.