JUDGMENT

 Leave granted.

2. For the disposal of the point in controversy the facts in C.A.No. 1088/95 @ SLP(C) No. 9649/93 lie in a short compass are as under:

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 of the Punjab Police Rules, (for short, the Rules). The respondent impugned its validity in CPW No. 12183/92. 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 reads thus:

"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 enrolment. There shall be no appeal against an order of discharge under this rule".

A reading of this rule would indicate that the Superintendent of Police, before expiry of three years from the date of enrolment 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 find him whether he was efficient in the discharge of duties and maintains the discipline and conduct expected of him as a disciplined police officer. 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 simpliciter the police officer from service. For recording the finding that the officer is unlikely to prove an efficient police officer, there must be interior record and the Superintendent of Police must objectively consider that record and record the conclusion in that behalf. But if he records a 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 officers conduct which disentitles the officer for any future employment or would be a blot on his career. The order, of discharge reads thus :

"Const. Jagdish Chander No. 3/460 is hereby discharged under PPR 12.21 with immediate effect i.e. 1-6-92 A.N. as he is unlikely to prove an efficient police officer because he is habitual absentee, negligent to his duty and indisciplined."

3. It would thus be clear from the order of discharge that it is not an order of discharge simpliciter. On the other hand, the S.P. considered the record and found him to be habitual absence, negligent to 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 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 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.

4. However, the High Court was not justified in straightway, setting aside the order and directing reinstatement with consequential benefits. In view of the Judgment of this Court by a Constitution Bench in E.C.I.L., Hyderabad v. B. Karunkar (1994 AIR SCW 1050) the appropriate course for the State would be to direct an enquiry if they intend to hold and to give an opportunity to the officer concerned to defend himself and then pass appropriate orders. On the basis of the result of the enquiry necessary reliefs need to be moulded.

5. In this view, the order of the High Court is set aside. It would be open to the