Discharge of a probationer for unsatisfactory performance does not require a departmental enquiry and is not considered stigmatic under Article 226 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev, J.

1. The petitioner in this petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the judgment dated 17th February 2021 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu (the Tribunal) in TA No. 6317/2020 (SWP No. 1042/2005) titled Shabir Ahmad Ahanger vs. State of JK & Ors. whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner to throw challenge to order No. 631 of 2002 dated 18.10.2002 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, District Pulwama. The impugned judgment is assailed on multiple grounds. However, before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to refer to the material facts which are germane to the disposal of this petition.

2. The petitioner came to be appointed as Constable in the J&K Police in the year 2000 and was put on probation. On 28th February 2002, the petitioner was deputed to undergo basic recruitment training course at Manigam. The petitioner absented from training w.e.f 4th March 2002 and was thus reverted to his parent district by PTS Manigam vide order issued under Endorsement No. 1222-24 dated 29th March 2002. Mohd Altaf Nima The petitioner reported to the District Superintendent of Police concerned on 21st July 2002 for duties and was permitted. However, on 18th August 2002, he again absented unauthorisedly and reported back on 22nd August 2002. Finally, on 25th August 2002, the petitioner again absented from duty unauthorisedly and did not report. The Dy. SP. (DAR) Pulwama conducted a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and recommended his discharge from service w.e.f. 25th August 2002. Taking note of frequent unauthorized absence of the petitioner during probation, the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Pulwama vide order No. 631 of 2002 dated 18th October 2002 discharged the petitioner from service w.e.f 25th August 2002 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove himself a good police official during his probation. It is this order of the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Pulwama which was called in question by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and the material on record and arrived at the conclusion that the discharge of the petitioner during probation which was not in any manner stigmatic in nature and, therefore, perfectly legal. The petitioner was, thus, dismissed vide order and judgment impugned passed by the Tribunal.

3. The impugned order and judgment of the Tribunal is challenged by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the respondents did not conduct any departmental enquiry nor was the petitioner provided any opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order of discharge.

4. Mr. M. S. Reshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the order of discharge referring to the petitioner as “not a good police official” has cast a stigma upon the petitioner which has the effect of debarring the petitioner from seeking employment elsewhere. He, therefore, submits that such order could not have been passed without complying with the minimum requirement of principles of natural justice.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the order and judgment impugned passed by the Tribunal is perfectly legal and does Mohd Altaf Nima not call for any interference by this Court in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. From perusal of the impugned order of discharge, it clearly transpires that the petitioner who was appointed as Constable in the year 2002 was immediately deputed to undergo basic recruitment training course at Manigam. The petitioner absented unauthorisedly during the training. The respondents were compelled to revert him back to his parent department. This was done by the PTS Manig