ORDER

1. HEARD COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

2. LEAVE GRANTED.

3. THE APPELLANT HEREIN WAS APPOINTED AS A SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER IN THE PUNJAB POLICE FORCE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE APPELLANT ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED RAPE AND WAS PROSECUTED UNDER SECTION 376 IPC. WHILE THE PROSECUTION WAS IN PROGRESS, THE APPELLANT WAS DISCHARGED FROM SERVICE BY AN ORDER DATED 2-1-1998 PASSED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GURDASPUR. THE ORDER PASSED AGAINST THE APPELLANT RUNS AS UNDER:

"SMT SRISTA DEVI, WIFE OF BALJIT RAJ SANSI, RESIDENT OF AWANKHA REPORTED THAT SHE WAS GOING TO THE FIELDS TO ANSWER THE CALL OF NATURE ON 1-10-1997 AT ABOUT 8.00 P.M. ON THE WAY CONSTABLE HARDIAL SINGH, NO. 495/GSP AND SPO JASPAL SINGH, NO. 73/AC OF POLICE STATION DINA NAGAR CAUGHT HOLD OF HER AND COMMITTED RAPE ON HER WITHOUT HER CONSENT. CASE FIR NO. 155 DATED 2-10-1997 UNDER SECTIONS 376/34 IPC POLICE STATION DINA NAGAR HAD BEEN REGISTERED IN THIS CONNECTION. THE ABOVE ACT ON THE PART OF SPO JASPAL SINGH, NO. 73/AC IS GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND LIABLE TO PUNISHMENT. SPO JASPAL SINGH, NO. 73/AC IS HEREBY DISCHARGED FROM SERVICE WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT."

4. AFTER THE ORDER OF DISCHARGE WAS PASSED, THE APPELLANT WAS ACQUITTED BY THE COURT OF SESSION. THEREAFTER, THE APPELLANT FILED A PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION CHALLENGING THE ORDER DISCHARGING HIM FROM SERVICE. THE SAID WRIT PETITION WAS DISMISSED. IT IS AGAINST THE SAID JUDGMENT, THE APPELLANT HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BY MEANS OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION.

5. LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANT URGED THAT THE ORDER OF DISCHARGE BEING STIGMATIC IN NATURE, THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PASSED WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION. WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE ARGUMENT. THE IMPUGNED ORDER, ON THE FACE OF IT, SHOWS THAT IT CASTS ASPERSION AND THEREFORE, IT IS STIGMATIC IN CHARACTER. THE ORDER OF DISCHARGE IS, IN FACT, AN ORDER OF REMOVAL FROM SERVICE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE RESPONDENTS TO HAVE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF SHOW CAUSE TO THE APPELLANTS AS PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY THE ORDER OF REMOVAL PASSED AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS ILLEGAL AND VOID. IN THAT VIEW OF THE C MATTER, THE ORDER OF REMOVAL FROM SERVICE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.

6. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE. WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT IT IS OPEN TO THE RESPONDENTS EITHER PASS AN ORDER OF SIMPLICITER DISCHARGE OR TAKE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPELLANT.

7. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.