The Punjab State and Another vs Sh. Satinder Singh

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The plaintiff-respondent was recruited as a Constable on March 6, 1984. He was absent from duty on June 22, and 23, 1984. On July 17, 1984, the plaintiff respondent was discharged from service. Aggrieved by the order, he filed a civil suit. It was averred that the order of discharge though apparently innocuous, had been passed on account of the alleged absence of the plaintiff-respondent from duty. On this premises, it was contended that the order was punitive in character and could not have been passed except after holding an enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Rules.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant-appellants, it was inter alia stated that "the punishing authority assessed his work and found him unlikely to become an efficient police officer. As such, he was discharged from service in accordance with Rule 12.21 of PPR". The respondent filed a replication reiterating his claim and averred that the was discharged from service because of the alleged absence from duty." On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

Whether he impugned order dated 17.7.1984 is illegal and void ? OPP.

Whether notice u/s 80 C. P. C. is not legal and valid 7 OPD.

Relief.

Finding that the plaintiff respondent had been discharged from service on account of his alleged absence, the suit was decreed. The finding of the learned trial Court having been affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court, the State of Punjab alongwith Commandant 75th Bn. of the Punjab Armed Police, Jallandhar have come up in his second appeal.

I have heard Mr. P. S. Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the appellants and Mr. H. S. Gill for the respondent.

Mr. Teji contends that the Courts below have erred in holding that the order is punitive in character. On the other hand, Mr. Gill contends that a perusal of the record shows that the respondent was discharged from service only on account of the alleged misconduct of absence from duty. According to the learned counsel, there was no evidence to indicate that he was unlikely to prove a good police officer.

I have gone through the case with be help of the counsel for the parties.

A perusal of the record shows that on June 25, 1984, Head Constable, Mohan Singh made a report to the effect that the respondent was found to be absent and therefore, Report No. 14 dated 22, 1984 was recorded. Thereafter, he was absent for 15 hours and 30 minutes regarding which an entry was made vide report No. 15 dated June 23, 1984. His statements were recorded according to which he had been granted rest and that he had gone to the City to buy medicines where on meeting a relation, he had taken liquor. Copies of the reports alongwith two statements made by the respondents were forwarded by him to the inspector. On this basis of these reports, the Inspector recommended that respondent having been found to be absent from duty on June 22, 1984 and June 23, 1984 should be discharged from service. This view was endorsed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police The matter was then put up to the Commandant of Bn., who vide order dated July 17, 1984 ordered that the respondent "is hereby discharged under 12.21 PPR". This document is on record at Exhibit P-5. The statements made by the plaintiff respondent are on record at Exhibits D 1 and D 2. Further while appearing as PW-1 the plaintiff-respondent has categorically asserted that he was ordered to be discharged from service only on account of his alleged absence and not on the basis of his record of service or any other material on the file. The solitary witness examined on behalf of defendant-appellant was Mohan Singh, Head Constable who appeared as DW 1 He stated that "Vide Exhibit P-5. I had made a complaint against the plaintiff that he had remained absent from duty for 15 hours and 30 minutes on one occasion and one day and 4 hours on the second occasion and on my complaint, the Commandant passed the order Exhibit P-5 A".

Inevitably, a reference has to be made to the provisions of Rule 12.21. It provides as under:-

"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."

A perusal of the above rule shows that Superintendent of Police is competent to discharge any Constable ''who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police Officer". The constable is on trial. He is as if on probation. His suitability for continuance in service is being judged. During this period of 3 years if his performance is found to be satisfactory, he would normally be allowed to continue in service. However, if it is found that he is unlikely to prove an efficient police officer, the Superintendent of Police is entitled to discharge him from service. It is equally clear that no body is discharged from service without any reason. It is only on account of the availability of some material indicating a deficiency in performance of duty or some other lapse which forces the authority concerned to order the discharge of a constable. Consequently, if in a given case, the Superintendent of Police finds that a Constable has remained absent and therefore, is not disciplined and is thus unlikely to make a good police officer, he in nay view, will be fully entitled to pass an order in exercise of the power under Rule 12.21. The intention while passing such order is not to punish the person. It is only to get rid of the person who in the opinion of the Superintendent of Police, is not likely to make an efficient police officer.

Mr. Gill, learned counsel for the respondent, however, points out that there is a catena of decisions wherein it has been held that an order passed by the Superintendent of Police on account of the alleged absence from duty is punitive in character. He has cited the following decisions in support, of his submission:-

Rajinder Kaur v. Punjab State 1986 (3) S.L.R. 78; Hardeep Singh v. State of Haryana 1987 (4) S.L.R. 576; Punjab State and Anr. v. Smt Kamlesh Kumari 1988 (1) S.L.R. 614; Rajinder Singh v. The State of Haryana 1989 (2) S.L.R. 79. Jagjit Singh Ex Constable v. The Director General of Police, Punjab Chandigarh 1991(1) R.S.J. 653; Om Parkash v. State of Haryana 1991 (4) S.L.R. 75; Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana 1992 (1) S.L.R. 582.

Some of the above decision do take the view that if a Constable is ordered to be discharged from service in view of absence from duty, the order is] punitive in character and can be passed only after complying with the provisions of the Rules relating to imposition of a penalty and holding a regular enquiry. Respectfully following the dictum of law as laid down in the above cases, I have no option but to dismiss the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The parties in the circumstances of the case, are left to bear their own costs.