RSA No.173 of 1991 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.173 of 1991
Date of Decision: 2.12.2008
The State of Punjab ....Appellant
Vs.
Sain Dass ..Respondent
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma
Present: Mr.R.L.Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab,
for the appellant.
Mr.G.K.Chawla, Advocate,
for the respondent.
Vinod K.Sharma,J. (oral)
This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and
decree dated 17.7.1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Jalandhar allowing an appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the
judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class, Jalandhar
dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent.
The respondent/plaintiff was appointed as constable in Punjab
Armed Police and he joined his duties on 10.9.1981 at Jalandhar. He
successfully completed his training/recruitment course and worked as
RSA No.173 of 1991 2
constable at various places to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. He did
not earn any adverse report. His services were terminated on 21.3.1983 by
the Commandant. The appellant challenged the order of termination by
claiming it to be illegal, ultra-vires, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and
against the principles of natural justice.
The order was passed under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police
Rules (for short the Rules). It was claimed that it was not passed by the
competent authority and further the provisions of Rule 12.21 of the Rules
were not complied with in this case.
The plaintiff/respondent claimed that several representations
were made for reviewing the order but no steps were taken to review the
same and thus, the suit was filed.
Suit was contested on the ground that the appellant was not
found likely, to be a good and efficient police officer as such he was
discharged from service under Rule 12.21 of the Rules.
Other allegations were denied.
On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were
framed:-
1. Whether the order dated 21.3.1983 by virtue of which
the plaintiff was discharged from the service is illegal,
null and void? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present
form?OPD
3. Relief.
The suit was dismissed.
RSA No.173 of 1991 3
In appeal a plea was taken that no material was placed on
record to prove that the appellant was not likely to prove to be a good police
officer as periodical reports at the intervals of six months by the Sub
Inspector or Inspector of Police under whom the respondent/plaintiff
worked were not produced and considered. Thus, it was claimed that the
discharge of the appellant under Rule 12.21 of the Rules was illegal.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
vehemently contends that the judgment and decree passed by the learned
lower appellate court cannot be sustained as under Rule 12.21 of the Rules
constable can be discharged from service on the subjective satisfaction of
the competent authority. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant/State that the Superintendent of Police was competent to pass
order under Rule 12.21 of the Rules which could not be the subject-matter
of judicial scrutiny.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/
plaintiff, however, contends that order under Rule 12.21 can be by way of
punishment. The court can see whether order is of simple discharge or
passed on other material. In support of this contention respondent has
placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Smt.Rajinder Kaur Vs. Punjab State and another AIR 1986 SC 1790
(1), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as
under:-
“13. On a conspectus of all these decisions mentioned
hereinbefore, the irresistible conclusion follows that the
impugned order of discharge though couched in innocuous
RSA No.173 of 1991 4terms, is merely a comouflage for an order of dismissal from
service on the ground of misconduct. This order has been made
without serving the appellant any charge-sheet, without asking
for any explanation from her and without giving any
opportunity to show cause against the purported order of
dismissal from service and without giving any opportunity to
cross-examine the witnesses examined, that is, in other words
the order has been made in total contravention of the provisions
of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The impugned order is,
therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. A writ of certiorari
be issued on the respondents to quash and set aside the
impugned order dated 9.9.1980 of her dismissal from service. A
writ in the nature of mandamus and appropriate directions be
issued to allow the appellant to be reinstated in the post from
which she has been discharged The appeal is thus allowed with
costs. The authorities concerned will pay all her emoluments to
which she is entitled to in accordance with the extant rules as
early as possible in any case not later than eight weeks from the
date of this judgment.”
. Learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the
judgment of this court in RSA No.1224 of 1986 titled Sat Paul, Ex-
Constable Vs. Punjab State decided on 27.5.1988.
Learned counsel for the respondent further placed reliance on
the judgment of this court in the case of Punjab State Vs. Joginder Singh,
Ex-Constable 1989 (3) SLR 665 to contend that in the absence of
RSA No.173 of 1991 5periodical reports of the Sub Inspector under whom the constable is working
the order under Rule 12.21 of the Rules cannot be sustained. This court has
been pleased to lay down as under:-
“6. There is absolutely no material on the record to prove
that the plaintiff was not likely to prove a good police officer
for which he could be discharged from service under Rule
12.21 of the Rules. Rule 19.5(1) of the Rules,provides as
follows:-
“The fact that a recruit has been passed into the ranks
under rule 19.3 shall not be taken to mean that he is a
fully trained constable. A constable under three years’
service is at any time liable to discharge under rule
12.21. During the whole of this period he shall be kept
under close supervision and reported on at intervals of
six months in Form 19.5 (1) by the Sub Inspector or
Inspector under whom he is working through his
gazetted officer to the Superintendent of Police.
The orderly head-constable shall maintain a list of
constables under three years’ service. He shall submit the
name of each man a month before he is due from
confirmation to the Superintendent together with his
personal file which shall contain the form 19.5(1)
referred to in this rule.
Gazetted officers are expected to make themselves
acquainted as far as possible with the character and
RSA No.173 of 1991 6career of all constables under three years’ service and
shall be responsible that the name of men unlikely to
make efficient police officers are brought to the notice of
the Superintendent.”
It is evident from the said rule that the constable shall be
kept under close supervision and reported on at intervals of six
months in Form 19.5(1) by the Sub Inspector or Inspector under
whom he is working through his gazetted officer to the
Superintendent of Police. No such six-monthly report has been
brought on the record on behalf of the defendants In the
circumstances, there is no illegality in the concurrent findings
of the two Courts below as to be interfered with in second
appeal.”
The case in hand is squarely covered by the decision of this
court in the case of Punjab State Vs. Joginder Singh, Ex-Constable
(supra).
Thus, no question of law much less substantial question of law
arises in this regular second appeal for consideration of this court.
No merit.
Dismissed.
2.12.2008 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge