Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 8595
J. K. MAHESHWARI, J
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
JASWANT SINGH – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11871 OF 2014 | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11634 OF 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents:
The Supreme Court held that discharge of a probationary constable under Rule 12.21 was valid and not punitive, as there was no misconduct necessitating a prior inquiry.
Headnote:(A) Punjab Police Rules, 1934 - Rule 12.21 - Discharge of probationary constable - The respondent was discharged for prolonged absence without intimation, leading to a suit claiming the discharge illegal - Trial Court held the discharge violated natural justice - High Court confirmed the plaintiff's entitlement to benefits - Supreme Court found no misconduct in discharge, established that Rule 12.21 permits discharge if a constable is unlikely to prove efficient. (Paras 4, 11, 19)
(B) Order of discharge simpliciter versus punitive termination - The determination of whether a termination is punitive hinges on the foundational purpose and inquiry preceding the decision, with no evidence of misconduct necessitating an inquiry in the present case. (Paras 11, 19)
Facts of the case:
The respondent constable remained absent during training without notifying authorities leading to a recommendation for discharge by the supervisory officer under Rule 12.21.
Findings of Court:
The discharge was deemed not to be punitive as it did not stem from an inquiry into misconduct.
Issues: Whether the termination order constituted a punitive measure or a valid discharge without allegations warranting an inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that absent serious allegations or misconduct, the discharge was valid under Rule 12.21 as it served the purpose of assessing suitability rather than punishment.
Result: Appeals allowed, and the suit dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. discharge order's violation of natural justice. (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. state's appeal against the discharge ruling. (Para 6 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. distinction between simpliciter and punitive discharges. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGEMENT
J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. In the present appeals, respondent Jaswant Singh was recruited as a constable with Punjab Police. During probation, he was discharged from the services by Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “S.S.P.”) in exercise of power under Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as “PPR”). Challenging the same, the respondent- plaintiff filed a suit, which was partly decreed by the Trial Court Digitally signed by Nidhi Ahuja Date: 2023.09.05 17:32:02 IST Reason:
- Signature Not Verified and the discharge order was held to be illegal on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
2. Assailing the same, the appellants/State preferred first appeal before Additional District Judge, Amritsar. Simultaneously, the respondent-plaintiff also filed a first appeal and sought relief of mandatory injunction on the ground that since the order discharging him from services was not found legally sustainable, therefore, he should be allowed to join duty and should be granted all the consequential benefits. The first appellate Court by common judgment dismissed the appeal filed by State and allowed the appeal of the respondent-plaintiff holding him entitled to receive all service benefits as accrued.
3. Challenging the common judgment passed by the first appellate Court, two regular second appeals were filed before the High Court by the State Government. The first one was against the judgment in their appeal passed by the first appellate Court and the second was against the grant of mandatory injunction granting all service benefits to the respondent-plaintiff. Both the appeals were dismissed by the impugned judgment, against which the present appeals have been filed.
4. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent-plaintiff was appointed as constable in Punjab Police on probation, who joined on 12.11.1989 and was allotted number 1669. He was sent for training to ‘Police Recruits Training Centre, Jahan Khelan, District Hoshiarpur’ (hereinafter referred to as “Training Centre”). Meanwhile, he along with other recruit constables were sent to Amritsar on 24.11.1990 for special duty as security guards. After the completion of the said assignment, all the constables deputed on duty were relieved and they reported back to the Training Centre, except respondent-plaintiff who remained absent without any intimation. The Superintendent of Police of the Training Centre (hereinafter referred to as “S.P.”), came to know about such conduct and reported to S.S.P. Amritsar vide memorandum dated 21.02.1991. It was stated therein that owing to prolonged absence from duty without intimation, respondent-plaintiff had no interest in training, and he lacked a sense of responsibility. Therefore, it was recommended that he cannot prove himself to be a good, efficient police officer and he is setting a bad precedent for other trainees. The S.P. further recommended for his discharge from service under Rule 12.21 of PPR with a request to strike-off his name from the rolls of the Training Centre with immediate effect treating the absence period as on leave without pay. In furtherance to the said recommendation, the S.S.P. passed the order dated 28.03.1991, discharging the respondent-plaintiff. The said order is relevant and for ready reference is being reproduced as under:
- “ORDER Constable Jaswant Singh No. 1669/ASR S/o Shri Hazara Singh, caste Jat, R/o Village Thoba, PS Ramdass, Police District Majitha is hereby discharged from service under P.P.R. 12.21 as he is not likely to become an efficient Police Officer. His absent period from 24.11.1990 to date is treated as non-duty non pay.
- Issue orders in OB.
- Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxx Sr. Su
