DALVEER BHANDARI, J.-

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the judgment dated 16-9-2002 delivered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 556 of 2001.

3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:

The respondent was appointed on probation for a period of three years in the Punjab Police in 1989. In July 1992, he was sent to Bamala, Punjab to attend a departmental enquiry. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bamala relieved the respondent on 1-8-1992 with the direction to report at his place of posting, but the respondent did not report at his place of posting, therefore, Arising out of SLP (e) No. 5753 of 2003. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 16-9-2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 556 of 2001 he was marked absent from 1-8-1992 to 19-9-1992. The respondent joined the duty on 20-9-1992 after one month and two days and again remained absent from 7-10-1992. The respondent remained absent for a long period a without any permission from the senior officers which is a serious act of misconduct according to the police discipline rules. In these circumstances, the respondent was dismissed from service W.E.J. 1-11-1992 under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.

4. Rule 12.21 reads as under:

"12.21. A constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police b 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,"

5. The said order of dismissal was challenged by the respondent by filing a civil suit for declaration that the order of dismissal is illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional, null and void and against the principle of natural justice. The suit of the respondent-plaintiff was decreed.

6. The State of Punjab aggrieved by the said judgment and decree preferred an appeal. The said appeal was also dismissed. According to the appellants the appeal was dismissed without considering the Punjab Police Rule 12.21. Under the said Rule, an employee of disciplined forces can be d removed from services any time within three years of the enrolment. The appellate court held that an opportunity has to be afforded to the delinquent official because the dismissal from the service carries a serious stigma.

7. The State of Punjab preferred a regular second appeal contending that the question of absence from duty without prior permission of the senior officer is an act of grave misconduct. The Punjab Police Rules, 1934 permit e that an inefficient constable may be discharged by the Superintendent of Police at any time within three years of the enrolment. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the regular second appeal on the ground that the impugned order of discharge was stigmatic and the respondent was not given a fair opportunity and secondly, absence from duty could not be viewed f as culpable as in the same order the Senior Superintendent of Police, (for short "SSP"), Barnala has condoned the respondent's absence from the duty. The State of Punjab aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court has preferred the present appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab submitted that 9 the controversy involved in this case is no longer res integra. He placed reliance on a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singhl. The facts of this case are almost similar to the facts of the case in hand. In the said case, the respondent was appointed as a police constable. Before completion of the probation period of three years, he absented himself from duty without seeking permission for 22 days. The SSP discharged him from service with immediate effect by invoking Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The respondent challenged the order of discharge before the civil court. The civil court hel