Judgment

SHINGHAL, J.:- These three appeals by certificates granted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana are directed against two judgments of that court dated August 20 and another judgment of that court dated November 22, 1968. The High Court first decided the 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 law and have been heard together at the request of learned counsel for the parties and will be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. 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 enrolled 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 R. 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 were valid. The respondents challenged the validity of those orders by writ petitions which were allowed by the impugned judgments of the High Court and the three appeals are before us for that reason.

3. It has been argued by Mr. Harbans Singh, on behalf of the appellant State, that even though the respondents had put in more than three years service as police officers of the State Government, their appointments were temporary and could be terminated for that reason even if the termination could not strictly be said to fall within the purview of R. 12.21 of the Rules. That in fact is the only question for consideration in these appeals and can easily be answered with reference to the provisions of the Police Act, 1861, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the Rules.

4. Section 1 of the Act defines the police to include all persons who shall be enrolled under it. Section 2 provides that the entire police establishment under the State Government shall be deemed to be one police force, and shall be formally enrolled. It further provides that the conditions of service of the members of the subordinate ranks of the police force shall be such as may be determined by the State Government. Section 8 is also relevant for it expressly provides that every police officer appointed to the police force of the State (other than an officer mentioned in Section 4), shall receive on his appointment a certificate in the form annexed to the Act, by virtue of which he shall be vested with the powers, functions and privileges of a police-officer. The certificate states that the police officer concerned has been appointed a member of the police force under the Act, and vested with the powers, functions and privileges of a police officer. The certificate is not therefore the order of appointment or enrolment, but is subsequent to the appointment and the enrolment, even though it is a part of the process of appointment and enrolment, inasmuch as it certifies that the police officer has been vested with the necessary powers, functions and privileges of a police officer. The certificate does not however have any bearing on the question whether its holder is a permanent or a temporary police officer, for that is a matter which has to be governed by the other conditions of his service. It is not in dispute before us that such certificates were issued to all the three respondents and that they functioned as police officers for more than three years.

5. Chapter X