Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab & Others vs Rajinder Singh on 18 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051886
RSA No. 3016 of 1996 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:051886
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(207) RSA No. 3016 of 1996 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 18.04.2024
The State of Punjab and another
...Appellants
Versus
Rajinder Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for the appellants.
None for the respondent.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. The present regular second appeal has been filed challenging
the judgments and decrees of the courts below dated 16.01.1995 and
27.03.1996 by which the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff challenging
the order dated 02.07.1992 discharging the respondent-plaintiff from
service under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, has been set-
aside.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants submits that
the courts below have held that the order dated 02.07.1992 discharging
the respondent-plaintiff from service under Rule 12.21 of 1934 Rules is
punitive in nature as, the said order has been passed on the ground that
the respondent-plaintiff was habitual absentee from duty, hence, the
appellants-defendants are under obligation to hold an enquiry to prove the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051886
RSA No. 3016 of 1996 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:051886
said allegations before taking any action, whereas the said view of the
courts below is contrary to the view 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 also dealt with the passing of an
order under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
3. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff. It
may be noticed that on the last date of hearing also, learned counsel for
the respondent-plaintiff had taken an adjournment that he is not well.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants-defendants
and have gone through the record with his able assistance.
5. As per the settled principle of law as well as keeping in view
the provisions of Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, the
department has a jurisdiction to form an opinion as to whether, an
employee is likely to become a good police officer or not and in case, the
department is of an opinion that the said employee is not likely to become
a good police officer, he/she can be discharged from service within a
period of three years of joining.
6. In the present case, within a period of five months of joining,
keeping in view the performance of the respondent-plaintiff, an opinion
was formed by the department that the respondent-plaintiff is not likely to
become an efficient police officer and he was discharged from service by
passing an order simplicitor. The courts below have held that the said
order of discharge is punitive on the ground that the same has been passed
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051886
RSA No. 3016 of 1996 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:051886
keeping in view the habitual absence of the respondent-plaintiff. The
order passed on 02.07.1992 is as under :-
"ORDER
Constable Rajinder Singh No. 4536/TT of this district
has been found inlikely to prove an efficient Police Officer.
He is, therefore, hereby discharged from service under PPR
12.21 with immediate effect. He will deposit all the uniform
articles including identity card issued by the Police
Department.
Issue orders in the O.B and all concerned to note for
necessary action.
Sr. Superintendent of Police,
Tarn Taran"
7. A bare perusal of the above order would show that a
simplicitor order has been passed by the department under Rule 12.21 of
the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. Nothing has been mentioned in the order
dated 02.07.1992, which is stigmatic or proves that the same has been
passed by way of punishment. As per the judgment in Sher Singh
(supra), the department has the jurisdiction to pass an order simplicitor
and take appropriate action after forming an opinion that the concerned
employee is not likely to become an efficient police officer. The relevant
paragraphs 32 and 39 of the said judgment are as under :-
"32. With utmost respect it appears that the view taken by their
Lordships of the Division Bench is rather liberal. There appears
to be nothing in the Rule which may debar the Superintendent of
Police from discharging a constable, who is not only absent from
duty, but is even found whistling or misbehaving with the public.
Nor can it be said that such an act is minor or j trivial. The rule
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051886
RSA No. 3016 of 1996 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:051886
does not enjoin upon the authority to wait from a constable to
commit 'consistent lapses or misbehaviour'. A single act of
indiscipline can lead the competent authority to conclude that the
constable is unlikely to prove an efficient police officer and to
discharge him from service. In this situation, it does not appear to
be possible to accept the view taken by the Division Bench. It is,
consequently over-ruled.
33. xxx xxx xxx xxx
34. xxx xxx xxx xxx
35. xxx xxx xxx xxx
36. xxx xxx xxx xxx
37. xxx xxx xxx xxx
38. xxx xxx xxx xxx
39. In view of the above it is held that -
(1) A constable can be discharged from Service under Rule 12.21
at any time within three years of his enrolment in spite of the fact
that there is a specific allegation which may even amount to
misconduct against him;
(2) A Superintendent of Police can form his opinion regarding the
likelihood or otherwise of a constable making a good police
officer, not only on the basis of the periodic reports contemplated
under Rule 19.5 but also on the basis of any other relevant
material; and (3) The provisions of Rule 16.24 and Article
311 shall be attracted only when the punishing authority decides
to punish the constable."
8. Keeping in view the above, the findings recorded by the
courts below that the order impugned dated 02.07.1992 has been passed
by way of punishment is contrary to the facts and evidence, which have
come on record and judgments and decrees of the courts below are also
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051886
RSA No. 3016 of 1996 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:051886
perverse, hence, the judgments and decrees of the courts below cannot
sustain and are liable to be set-aside and are accordingly set-aside.
9. The suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is accordingly
dismissed. It may be noticed that while issuing notice of motion, the
judgments and decrees of the courts below had already been stayed.
10. Appeal is allowed in above terms.
Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
April 18th, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
