Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Ashwani Kumar on 10 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049107
RSA-2725-1995 2024:PHHC:049107 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(202) RSA-2725-1995
Date of Decision : April 10, 2024
State of Punjab .. Petitioner
Versus
Ashwani Kumar .. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate, for the respondent.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and
decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 22.07.1995 by which, the
judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 09.02.1994 has been set aside
and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff has been allowed.
2. Certain facts may be noticed for the correct appreciation of the
issue in hand.
3. The respondent-plaintiff was appointed as a Constable in the
Punjab Police in March 1990. Within a period of three years, the competent
authority vide order dated 03.08.1992, discharged the respondent-plaintiff
from service while exercising power under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police
Rules, 1934. The said order was challenged by the respondent-plaintiff by
filing a civil suit. Keeping in view the evidence and facts which had come
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049107
on record, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 09.02.1994,
dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree
of the trial Court, the respondent-plaintiff filed an appeal, which came to be
decided on 22.07.1995. The judgment and decree of the trial Court dated
09.02.1994 was set aside and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was
allowed on the ground that the actual reason for discharge was absence from
duty. Hence, the present regular second appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-State argues that once the
authority has jurisdiction to decide as to whether, any Constable appointed
will become an efficient Officer or not and order can be passed within a
period of three years from the date of appointment and the order passed is in
accordance with the provisions of Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules,
1934 and the said order is not stigmatic, the Court will not interfere. The
reliance is being placed upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court
in CWP No.5569 of 1992 titled as Sher Singh vs. State of Haryana,
decided on 02.02.1994, which judgment has been followed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab vs. Rajesh Kumar 2007 (1) SCT
459.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that where
the order of discharge is stigmatic, the same cannot be sustained and the
reliance is being placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in Civil Appeal No.3049 of 2000 titled as Prithipal Singh vs. State
of Punjab and others, decided on 28.04.2000 and SLP (C) No.9649 and
14881 of 1993 titled as State of Haryana vs. Jagdish Chander, decided on
13.01.1995.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049107
7. Keeping in view the settled principle of law settled in respect of
Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, the jurisdiction to discharge an
employee from service within a period of three years of appointment, exist
with the Department. In case, a bona fide decision has been taken by the
Department to discharge an employee from service and that too by order
simplicitor, no grievance can be raised by the employee and the Court will
not interfere in such action taken against the employer. The judgment of the
Full Bench of this Court in Sher Singh's case (supra) has already been
relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajesh Kumar's case
(supra) is fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and
same supports the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-State.
8. The only question which the learned counsel for the
respondent-plaintiff has raised is that in case the order of discharge under
Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 is stigmatic, then the same
cannot be sustained. In order to appreciate the same, the actual order passed
against the respondent-plaintiff is reproduced is as under:-
" I have considered the rival arguments. After surgically
examining the record, I have no reason to disagree agreeing
with the learned counsel for the appellant. The impugned order
is re-produced as under:-
"Constable Ashwani Kumar No.1441/GSP is hereby
discharged from service with immediate effect under P.P.R
12.21 as he is unlikely to prove an efficient Police Officer."
9. A bare perusal of the same would show that a totally innocuous
an order simplicitor has been passed discharging the respondent-plaintiff
from service keeping the power under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police
Rules, 1934. No statement of any misconduct has been noticed in the said
order. That being so, the order discharging the respondent-plaintiff from
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049107
service is not stigmatic. Hence, the judgment being relied upon by the
learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff will not come into operation in
the facts and circumstances of the present case.
10. No other argument was raised.
11. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the settled
principle of law, the judgment of the lower Appellate Court vide order dated
22.07.1995 is perverse to the evidence as well as to the facts on record and
law cited hereinbefore hence, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the
judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 22.07.1995 is set
aside and that of the trial Court is revived and the suit filed by the
respondent-plaintiff is dismissed.
12. The present appeal is allowed in above terms.
April 10, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
