Back
Manipur High Court
T. N. R. TIRUMALPAD, J.
Konsam Joykumar Singh
Versus
Union Territory of Manipur
Civil Writ Appln. No. 9 of 1960
Decided On : 05-08-1961
DISCHARGE OF PROBATIONARY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE - ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION - APPLICABILITY - ENQUIRY - OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES - DISCHARGE FROM SERVICE - WHETHER AMOUNTS TO DISMISSAL - REVERSION TO PERMANENT POST IN JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT - EFFECTIVE DATE OF DISCHARGE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a permanent employee in the Judicial Department, was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police on probation. During his probationary period, he was alleged to have engaged in misconduct. An enquiry was conducted, and based on the report of the enquiry officer, the Superintendent of Police issued an order discharging the petitioner from service with effect from the date of his suspension, which was prior to the date of the discharge order. The petitioner challenged the order, contending that it amounted to dismissal and violated Article 311 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was a probationer at the time of the alleged misconduct and the discharge order did not amount to dismissal. The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which provides for reasonable opportunity to be heard before dismissal or removal from service, as he was not a permanent employee in the Police Department. The court also held that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was sufficient and that he was given an opportunity to submit his explanation.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was a permanent employee or a probationer in the Police Department at the time of the alleged misconduct. 2. Whether the discharge order amounted to dismissal and violated Article 311 of the Constitution. 3. Whether the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was fair and reasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on Rule 13 of Part III of the Assam Police Manual, which provides that Sub-Inspectors of Police are appointed on probation for a period of two years and must pass departmental examinations to be confirmed in the post. The court found that the petitioner had not completed the probationary period and had not passed all the departmental examinations, and therefore he was still a probationer at the time of the alleged misconduct. 2. The court held that the discharge order did not amount to dismissal because it was not intended to carry with it any evil consequences, such as loss of pension or future employment opportunities. The court noted that the Superintendent of Police had considered the petitioner's young age and decided to discharge him instead of dismissing him. 3. The court found that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was sufficient and that he was given an opportunity to submit his explanation. The court noted that the petitioner was provided with a copy of the charges against him and was allowed to submit a written statement in response.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the discharge order was valid and did not violate Article 311 of the Constitution. However, the court modified the order to make it effective from the date of the discharge order, rather than the earlier date of suspension, and declared that the petitioner was deemed to hold his permanent post in the Judicial Department from that date.
The petitioner submitted written statement on 27-11-1959 on the charges framed against him. The enquiry was conducted by Dy. Superintendent of Police Shri A. Kaminibudhu Singh. He took down statements from certain witnesses, but it was not done in the presence of the petitioner and no opportunity was given to him to cross-examine the witnesses. The Enquiring Officer submitted a report on 21-2-1960 holding that the petitioner drunk liquor in the hotel and created nuisance under the influence of drink and that his conduct was not above reproach and that in view of his unsatisfactory conduct during his probationary period, it was not desirable to retain him in the force and that he may be discharged from service if there was nothing irregular. On this report, the Inspector-General of Police, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 7-3-1960 calling upon him to state in writing within 8 days why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner filed a written statement in reply.
Thereafter on 24-6-1960, Shri L. Gopal Singh, who had by then been reverted as Superintendent of Police from the original post of Inspector-General of Police passed the order Annexure A/7, which is now complained against in this writ petition stating that he was satisfied that the petitioner under the influence of drink had uttered indecent things causing annoyance to many members of the public, that his explanation was not satisfactory, that he was a probationer who had not passed his departmental examination completely, that in view of his young age he felt inclined not to take drastic action leading to his dismissal and that he was therefore discharged from service with effect from the date on which he was placed under suspension.
2. Now the contention of the petitioner is that he was holding a permanent post both in the Office of the District and Sessions Judge as well as in the Police Department, that he was therefore entitled to the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution, that he was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses at the enquiry, that the said enquiry was in contravention of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution that the order of discharge Annexure A/7 amounted to an order of dismissal and was not passed by proper authority and that therefore a writ of certiorari should be issued quashing the said order.
3. According to the respondents, the petitioner was only a probationer who cannot claim any right to hold the post, that until the satisfactory completion of his probation he could be discharged from service, that the order Annexure A/7 did not amount to a dismissal, but only to a discharge, that Article 311 of the Constitution will not apply to the petitioner and that therefore Annexure A/7 is not liable to be set aside.
4. The petitioner had produced a copy of the order of the discharge as Annexure D and it was seen to have been signed by the Additional Superintendent of Police and it was the case of the petitioner that the Additional Superintendent of Police had no authority to order his discharge amounting to his dismissal. But the respondents produced the copy, Annexure A/7 of the original order which was seen to have been signed by the Superintendent of Police Shri L. Gopal Singh.
In view of the contradiction between Annexure
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
