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