Davinder Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 4.2.2011 passed by the Additional Director General of Police, Computer and Telecommunications, Punjab whereby the petitioner, who was holding the post of Constable Messenger/Operator, has been discharged from service. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chairman, Recruitment Board, Computers and Telecommunications, Punjab issued an advertisement on 15.6.2006 inviting applications for recruitment of 270 Constables Operators/Messengers and 142 Constables Technicians. In such advertisement, apart from other eligibility conditions, the educational qualifications for the post of Constables, Operator/Messengers were also stipulated and the same read in the following terms:

ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS:

i) xxx xxxx

ii) xxx xxxx

iii) Educational qualifications: Matriculation with Punjabi as an elective subject (essential) and for

(a) Operator/Messengers:- Two year ITI Course or equivalent, or One year course with one year experience from an institute, such courses having been recognized by Punjab State Technical Education Board/Department of Technical Education, Punjab/Department of Information Technology, Punjab ATI/EPI Advanced Training Institute, (ATI)CPI/CTI/NVTI/RVTI/MITI/FTI/CSTRI under Craftsmen Training Scheme/Apprenticeship. Training scheme and as per approved by Govt. of India/National council for vocational Training, DOEACC Centre (RCC) in the disciplines/subjects of Computer Software, Computer Operator/Programming Assistant, ''O'' level course from DOEACC, Computer Software Programming Desk Top Publishing Operator, Certificate course in Computer Applications.

It would require notice that the qualifications prescribed for the post of Constable Operator/Messenger were strictly in terms of the qualifications stipulated in the standing order No. 1 of 2006 issued by the Director General of Police, Punjab for recruitment of constables in the Telecommunications Branch of Punjab Police. It has been asserted that the petitioner applied for the post of Constable Operator/Messenger and subjected himself to the process of selection. On 14.3.2007, the petitioner was issued an appointment letter, Annexure P2, for the post of temporary Constable, Operator/Messenger and it was stipulated therein that his service conditions would be governed by the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as also other instructions, Rules/Standing Orders issued by the Government from time to time.

It so transpires that one Raman Kumar who possessed identical qualifications as the petitioner had also applied for the post of Constable, Operator/Messenger, but the claim of such Raman Kumar had been rejected on account of being ineligible on account of inappropriate educational qualifications. Accordingly, an application came to be submitted by the father of aforementioned Raman Kumar, which was duly forwarded to the Director General of Police, Punjab and, accordingly, a Committee under the Chairmanship of Inspector General of Police, IT & T Punjab was constituted to look into the matter. Accordingly, such Committee scrutinized the record and proceeded to re-verify the educational certificates submitted by the petitioner as regards his qualifications. Upon seeking necessary clarifications, a show cause notice dated 20.7.2010 was issued to the petitioner contemplating to impose the penalty of discharge from service on the basis that he did not possess the requisite qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of Constable, Operator/Messenger. The petitioner submitted reply thereto and upon consideration of the same and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, the impugned order dated 4.2.2011 discharging the petitioner from service was passed.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised a two-fold submission. In the first instance, it has been argued that there was no mis-representation on the part of the petitioner while applying for the post in question and he had submitted the necessary documents/certificates pertaining to his qualifications and it is only upon scrutinizing the same and having been found eligible that the petitioner had been issued the appointment letter. Accordingly, it has been contended that there was no occasion for the respondent-authorities to now hold the petitioner as ineligible for the post of Constable, Operator/Messenger and as such, to discharge him from service. The second submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in terms of placing reliance upon Rule 12.21 of 1934 Rules which reads in the following terms:

12.21. Discharge of Inefficients. - A constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police 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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue that in terms of Rule 12.21 of the 1934 Rules, the services of the petitioner could have been discharged only within a period of three years from the date of enrolment and since the petitioner had already served in excess of such stipulated period, the impugned order of discharge could not have been sustained.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused pleadings on the record, I find that the present petition deserves dismissal.

At the very outset, it is held that Rule 12.21 of the 1934 Rules governs the discharge of police officials who are found to be inefficient and against whom a finding is returned that he is found unlikely to prove an efficient Police Officer by the competent authority. In the present case, the impugned order of discharge is not on account of the petitioner having been held to be inefficient. Admittedly, the basis of passing the impugned order is in terms of having held the petitioner to be ineligible on account of not possessing the prescribed qualifications for the post of Constable, Operator/Messenger as stipulated in the advertisement read along with Standing Order No. 1 of 2006 issued by the Director General of Police. Clearly, Rule 12.21 of 1934 Rules would have no applicability to the facts of the present case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the requisite qualifications for the post of Constable, Operator/Messenger had been categorically stipulated in the advertisement issued on 15.6.2006. There is also no dispute as regards the fact that such qualification was strictly in terms of the qualifications prescribed in Standing Order No. 1 of 2006 issued by the Director General of Police, Punjab and appended at Annexure R2, along with the reply filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. A perusal of the impugned order would, in itself, reveal that upon enquiries having been made, it had been clarified by the Director, Indian Institute of Computer Education, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Dugri, Ludhiana that the diploma issued to the petitioner in Computer Applications was not recognized by D.G.E.T., Government of India or any Technical University. That apart, a clarification had also been sought from the Director, Indian Institute of Computer Education, Centre for Computer Education, Research and Training, Pitampura, Delhi to the effect that the diploma passed by the petitioner was not even recognized by the Government of India or NCT Delhi Department. It was upon such re-verification of the qualifications possessed by the petitioner and finding the same to be not recognized by the appropriate authorities that the show cause notice dated 20.7.2010, Annexure P3, had been served upon the petitioner. In the reply dated 29.7.2010, Annexure P4, submitted by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice, it was nowhere stated that the qualifications/Diploma possessed by the petitioner was duly recognized as per the stipulation contained in the advertisement whereby applications had been invited for recruitment to the post of Constable, Operator/Messenger. Even at the stage of arguments, learned counsel has not been able to refer to any document or pleadings where from it could be inferred by this Court that the petitioner, in fact, possessed all the requisite qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement. Even though the petitioner had, in fact, been issued an appointment letter in the year 2007 and he had served on the post in question, but it was always open for the respondent-authorities to have corrected an error whereby the petitioner had been appointed to the post of Constable, Operator/Messenger clearly on account of an oversight.

I also find that prior to issuance of the impugned order of discharge from service dated 4.2.2011, there has been due compliance of the Rules of natural justice. A show cause notice had been served upon him making the petitioner aware as regards the status of his qualifications as also the fact that the same were not duly recognized at the hands of the appropriate/competent authority. Even the reply submitted by the petitioner had been duly considered and he was even afforded an opportunity of hearing by the Additional Director General of Police (IT & T) prior to the passing of the impugned order. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 4.2.2011 and for the reasons recorded above, the present writ petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.