Mahipal Singh Mann vs State of Punjab and Another

G.R. Majithia, J.—The petitioner has impugned the order dated September 28, 1987 passed by respondent No. 1 dispensing with his services in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Facts first :-

The petitioner was appointed to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police by respondent No. I vide order contained in memorandum No. 1027-1H (I)-86/6215 dated February 28, 1986. The order provided that he would remain on probation for a period of two years with effect from the date of his appointment and if during the period of probation in the opinion of the appointing authority his work and conduct was not found satisfactory, the latter could dispense with his services without notice or could extend the probation period for another year. Before the expiry of the period of probation, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with since his work and conduct was not found to be satisfactory. The order under which the services of the petitioner were dispensed with reads thus :-

"Your work and conduct has not been found to be satisfactory during the period of your probation and it has been concluded that you are not a fit person for appointment to the Punjab Police Services and accordingly your services are hereby dispensed with immediate effect in terms of the Rule 8 of the Punjab Police Services Rule, 1959".

The order does not indicate that it was passed as a result of some inquiry alleged to have been conducted as enfolded by the petitioner in the petition. However, it is alleged in the petition that the petitioner''s services were dispensed with as a result of an ex-parte inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer with regard to certain charges of misconduct. This assertion appears to have been made only to highlight that the order under which his services have been dispensed with casts stigma.

The respondents have denied the allegations and stated that the order dispensing with the services of the petitioner had been passed strictly in accordance with the order of appointment containing terms and conditions on which offer of appointment was made.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order casts stigma since the order states that his work and conduct during the period of probation had not been found satisfactory. The order has been passed in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and is, as such, bad. In support of his submission he relied upon State of Punjab and Anr. v. Darshan Singh 1968 S. L. R. 734. The submission is devoid of any merit. Clauses (3 , and (4) of the appointment order read thus :-

"3. Your service shall be governed by the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959, as amended from time to time and other Rules/orders of the State Government.

The appointment offered to you is temporary but is likely to continue indefinitely. During the temporary period, your services are liable to be terminated on one month''s notice or one month''s pay including allowances in lieu thereof on either side".

Clause (5) specifically provides that the petitioner will be on probation for a period of two years with effect from the date of his appointment If during the period of probation, his work and conduct is not found satisfactory in the opinion of the respondent, his services could be dispensed with. Respondent No. 1 before the expiry of period of two years found that the work arid conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory and dispensed with his services. The words in the impugned order that "since his work and conduct was not found satisfactory during the period of probation" and as such it has been concluded that the petitioner is not a fit person for appointment, in the police are only a surplusage. The competent authority after examining the work and conduct of the petitioner during the period of probation opined that the services of the petitioner be dispensed with I summoned the service-record of the petitioner. A perusal thereof reveals that the decision was taken at the highest level that the petitioner''s services be dispensed with during the period of probation. On the facts enfolded in the file, I think the order was most just and fair calling for no interference in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The order dispensing with the services of the petitioner is strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the order of appointment and no exception can be taken to it.

In Darshan Singh''s case (supra), Darshan Singh was employed as temporary Inspector of Shops and Commercial Establishments in leave reserve vacancy. The Labour Commissioner wrote to him that there had been a number of complaints about his work and conduct from different quarters and that on inspection by the Chief Inspector, he found that he had violated the provisions of the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (Act No. 15 of 1958) and on account of doubtful integrity and inefficient work, he was considered unfit for retention in Government service any more. Darshin Singh was asked to give written reply to this letter. By a subsequent letter, the Labour Commissioner withdrew the earlier letter and proceeded to make the following order :--

"Since your work and conduct daring the period you have worked as Shop Inspector in this Department, has not been found satisfactory, your services are hereby terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of your employment as contained in the appointment letter issued to you with this office letter No. 9953, dated 27.5.1957 with effect from the date of your substitute reaches Kot Kapura to take over the charge from you".

On the basis of these facts, this Court found that the order caste stigma and was thus quashed. The facts of this case are distinguishable. In that case, the official was employed as a temporary Inspector of Shops and Commercial establishments and in view of the peculiar facts of that particular case, the Bench found that the order casts stigma on the official.

A probationer can be discharged in the manner provided for in the letter of appointment and also the statutory rules. Mere termination of employment does not carry with it "any civil consequences". The order of discharge does not cast any stigma on the petitioner. The words used in the order ''that since his work and conduct has not been found to be satisfactory and he is not found fit person for appointment to the police force'' are only a surplusage or explanatory that since the work and conduct of the petitioner has not been found satisfactory and as such, the petitioner has not been found fit for appointment to the Punjab Police Service.

The learned counsel for the State has placed his reliance on Union of India and Ors. v. R. S. Dhaba 1969 S.L.R. 442. In that case, Shri Dhaba was reverted from his officiating post of Income Tax Inspector on the ground that he was found unsuitable after trial to hold the post. The apex Court held that the order does not show that any stigma was attached to Shri R. S Dhaba. He was reverted from the officiating post since his work was found unsuitable and as such, the order could not be said to have been passed as a measure of punishment. After so holding, the apex Court held thus : -

"In the present case, however, the order of reversion does not contain any express words of stigma attributed to the conduct of the respondent and, therefore, it cannot be held that the order of reversion was made by way of punishment and the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution are consequently attracted".

For the reasons recorded above, the petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed but with no order as to costs.