An SPO cannot be discharged for alleged misconduct without notice and disciplinary inquiry.

Gurjeet Singh was appointed as a Special Police Officer (SPO) on 30 August 1994 and posted with the Government Railway Police, Bathinda.

He was selected for appointment as a Constable in the 5th Battalion, IRB, Amritsar, but was not permitted to join after it came to light that FIR No. 16 dated 13 January 1997 had been registered against him under Sections 307, 323, 324, 148 and 149 IPC.

The CID character-verification report did not disclose adverse material, although his service record referred to the criminal case.

He continued to serve as an SPO.

Subsequently, pursuant to a communication dated 21 September 2000 from the Director General of Police, Punjab, referring to the criminal case, his custody and an allegation of production of a false medical certificate, his services were discharged by order dated 6 October 2000 without a show-cause notice or departmental inquiry.

The trial Court dismissed his suit challenging the discharge on 1 March 2006.

The First Appellate Court allowed his appeal and decreed the suit on 9 June 2009, holding that the discharge was punitive in substance.

The State filed the present regular second appeal.

The Court considered the conditions of engagement of an SPO under Section 17 of the Police Act, 1861, which permitted appointment of special police officers and discharge in accordance with the applicable terms.

It held that a contractual or standing-order power to discharge an SPO without notice applies only to a genuine discharge simpliciter based on unsatisfactory suitability, work or conduct; it cannot be used where the real foundation of discharge is a specific allegation of misconduct.

Relying on Mathew P. Thomas v. Kerala State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 263, the Court held that the true nature of termination must be determined from the background and circumstances, and not merely from the form or language of the order.

It further relied on Surinder Pal Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2005 (1) SCT 106, and State of Punjab v. Dharam Pal, 2015 (3) SCT 633, for the principle that a stigmatic or misconduct-based discharge requires notice, opportunity of hearing and appropriate inquiry.

Parveen Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2001 (3) RSJ 206, was distinguished as applying only where the discharge is genuinely simpliciter.

Sher Singh v. State of Haryana, 1994 (2) SLR 100, concerning discharge of a constable under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, was held inapplicable because the respondent was discharged from his SPO engagement and had never joined as a constable.

The Court also considered Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar, 1996 (11) SCC 605, which recognises that antecedents may be relevant to suitability for appointment to a disciplined force, but held that this principle did not dispense with procedural fairness where the discharge was founded on misconduct.

Although the respondent’s conditions of engagement permitted discharge without notice, the Court held that those conditions could not be examined in isolation.

The DGP’s communication dated 21 September 2000 specifically referred to the criminal case, the respondent’s custody and the allegation that he had produced a false medical certificate, and directed his discharge on that basis.

The discharge order dated 6 October 2000 was passed pursuant to that communication.

The evidence, including the admission of the State’s witness, indicated that the respondent’s work and conduct were otherwise satisfactory; therefore, the allegations were not merely background circumstances but constituted the foundation of the decision to terminate.

Since the discharge was founded on allegations of misconduct and carried a stigmatic effect, the State was required to issue a show-cause notice, provide an opportunity of hearing and establish the allegations through a lawful inquiry.

Merely describing the order as a discharge simpliciter could not alter its punitive character.

The Court further held that the respondent’s criminal antecedents could not independently validate the impugned order because the character-verification report contained no adverse material apart from the registration of the case, and the respondent had subsequently been acquitted.

The discharge order dated 6 October 2000, having been passed without notice, opportunity of hearing or inquiry, was unsustainable.

Finding no illegality or perversity in the First Appellate Court’s judgment, the Court upheld the judgment and decree dated 9 June 2009 and dismissed the State’s regular second appeal.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.