Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
JAGDISH CHANDER
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/01/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
SEN, S.C. (J)
CITATION:
1995 AIR 984 1995 SCC (2) 567
JT 1995 (2) 108 1995 SCALE (1)378
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2.For the disposal of the point in controversy the facts in
C.A.No.1088/95 SLP(c) No.9649/93 lie in a short compass
are as under:
The respondent, Jagdish Chander, was appointed as a
constable on October 30, 1985. Since he was absent from
duty from April 20, 1992 to May 15, 1992, by proceedings
dated 1.1.1992, he was discharged from service as a
constable, exercising the power under rule 12.21 of the
Punjab Police Rules, (for short, ’the Rules’). The
respondent impugned its validity in CWP No. 12183/92. The
High Court by its order dated 14.1.1993 allowed the writ
petition, set aside the order and directed the appellant to
reinstate the respondent with continuity of the service and
consequential benefits. Thug, this appeal by special leave.
3. Rule 12.21 reads thus:
"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 enrollment. There shall be no appeal
against an order of discharge under this
rule."
A reading of this rule would indicate that the
Superintendent of Police, before expiry of three years from
the date of enrollment of the police officer into the
service, has been obviously given power to observe the
conduct and discharge of service by the police officer to
find him whether he was efficient in the discharge of duties
and maintains the discipline and conduct expected of him as
a disciplined police officer. During that period if the
S.P. finds that he is unlikely to prove an efficient police
officer, exercising the power under the rule, he may
discharge simplicitor the police officer from service. For
recording the finding that the officer is unlikely to prove
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
an efficient police officer, there must be anterior record
and the Superintendent of Police must objectively consider
that record and record the conclusion in that behalf But if
he records a finding, after considering the record, which
would be a stigma on the carrier of the discharged police
officer, it is settled law that the principles of natural
justice require that an opportunity be given to him before
recording finding adverse to the officer’s conduct which
disentitles the officer for any future employment or would
be a blot on his carrier. The order of discharged reads
thus:
110
"Const. Jagdish Chander No.3/460 is hereby
discharged under (PP) 12.2 1. with immediate
effect i.e. 1.6.92 A.N. as he is unlikely to
prove an efficient police officer because he
is habitual absentee negligent to his duty and
indisciplined."
4. It would thus be clear from the order of discharge that
it is not an 1 order of discharge simplicitor. On the other
hand, the S.P. considered the record and found him to be
habitual absentee, negligent to his duty and undisciplined.
The findings of habitual absence and indiscipline nec-
essarily cast stigma on his carrier and they would be an
impediment for any of future employment elsewhere. Under
those circumstances, the principles of natural justice do
require that he should be given an opportunity to explain
the grounds on which the S.P. proposes to pass and order of
discharge and then to consider the explanation submitted by
the police officer. Then the S.P. is competent to pass
appropriate orders according to the rules. Since this part
of the procedure had not been adopted, the order of
discharge is vitiated by manifest error of law.
5. However, the High Court was not justified in
straightaway setting aside the order and directing
reinstatement with consequential benefits. In view of the
Judgment of this Court by a Constitution Bench in Karunakar
v. E.C.I.L., Hyderabad the appropriate course for the State
would be to direct an enquiry if they intend to hold and to
give an opportunity to the officer concerned to defend
himself and then pass appropriate orders. On the basis of
the results of the enquiry necessary reliefs need to be
moulded.
6. In this view, the order of the High Court is set aside.
It would be open to the appellant, if so advised, to give an
opportunity to show cause to the respondents; consider their
objections and pass appropriate orders within a period of
two months from date of the receipt of the orders.
7. The appeal No. 1 088/95 (@ SLP No. 9649/93) is
accordingly allowed but, in the circumstances, without
costs.
8. In Civil Appeal No. 1089/95 (@ SLP(C) No. 14881/93,)
pursuant to the directions issued by the Tribunals since the
respondent-Nathu Ram has already been taken into service and
he is continuing, he would continue in service till
appropriate orders are passed. The appeal is allowed.
CA.NO. 1090195 @ SLP (C) No. 17909193
9. Leave granted.
10. In view of the above law, the appeal is dismissed since
the discharge is innocuous but based on record. No costs.
122