13 September 2004
Supreme Court
Download

STATE OF PUNJAB Vs BALBIR SINGH

Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL,D.M. DHARMADHIKARI
Case number: C.A. No.-006342-006342 / 2001
Diary number: 2259 / 2001


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6342 of 2001

PETITIONER: State of Punjab & Ors.                                           

RESPONDENT: Balbir Singh                                                     

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/09/2004

BENCH: Y.K. Sabharwal & D.M. Dharmadhikari

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T Y.K. Sabharwal, J.         The factual background which has given rise to this appeal is that :         The respondent who was appointed a Constable on 16.03.1991, was  discharged from service with effect from 17th March, 1993 by an order dated  March 19, 1993 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police under the Punjab  Police Rule 12.21.  Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 provides that "a  Constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer may be  discharged by the Senior Superintendent of Police at any time within three years  of enrolment.  There shall be no appeal against the order of discharge under this  Rule".  The Order of discharge states that "Balbir Singh has been found unlikely  to prove to be efficient police officer.  Hence he is hereby discharged from service  under PPR 12.21 with immediate effect i.e. 17.03.1993."  The appeal and the  revision filed by the respondent were dismissed by Deputy Inspector General of  Police and Director General of Police respectively.           In a suit filed by the respondent, the civil court held the termination order to  be illegal, null and void and set it aside.  Respondent was directed to be reinstated  in the service with all rights, benefits and privileges.  The first appeal filed by the  State was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala and the second  appeal by the High Court by the impugned judgment which is under challenge in  the present appeal.         The sole question for determination is whether the order of discharge was  punitive and, therefore, illegal having been passed without conducting any  disciplinary inquiry.  The High Court relying upon the decision in Smt. Rajinder  Kaur v. State of Punjab & Anr. [(1986) 4 SCC 141] has held the order of  discharge to be violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.  Before  examining this decision, it would be useful to notice other decision relevant on the  point in issue.         In Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India [1958 SCR 828], this Court  said : "The position may, therefore, be summed up as  follows : Any and every termination of service is not a  dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. A termination  of service brought about by the exercise of a  contractual right is not per se dismissal or removal, as  has been held by this Court in Satish Chander Anand  v. The Union of India (supra). Likewise the  termination of service by compulsory retirement in  terms of a specific rule regulating the conditions of  service is not tantamount to the infliction of a  punishment and does not attract Art. 311(2), as has  also been held by this Court in Shyam Lal v. The State  of Uttar Pradesh [(1955) 1 S.C.R. 26].  In either of the  two abovementioned cases the termination of the  service did not carry with it the penal consequences of  loss pay, or allowances under r. 52 of the Fundamental  Rules. It is true that the misconduct, negligence,  inefficiency or other disqualification may be the  motive or the inducing factor which influences the

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

Government to take action under the terms of the  contract of employment or the specific service rule,  nevertheless, if a right exists, under the contract or the  rules, to terminate the service the motive operating on  the mind of the Government is, as Chagla C.J. has said  in Shrinivas Ganesh v. Union of India (supra),  wholly irrelevant. In short, if the termination of service  is founded on the right flowing from contract or the  service rules then, prima facie, the termination is not a  punishment and carries with it no evil consequences  and so Art. 311 is not attracted. But even if the  Government has, by contract or under the rules, the  right to terminate the employment without going  through the procedure prescribed for inflicting the  punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in  rank, the Government may, nevertheless, choose to  punish the servant and if the termination of service is  sought to be founded on misconduct, negligence,  inefficiency or other disqualification, then it is a  punishment and the requirements of Art. 311 must be  complied with.  As already stated if the servant has got  a right to continue in the post, then, unless the contract  of employment or the rules provide to the contrary, his  services cannot be terminated otherwise than for  misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other good and  sufficient cause. A termination of the service of such a  servant on such grounds must be a punishment and,  therefore, a dismissal or removal within Art. 311, for it  operates as a forfeiture of his right and he is visited  with the evil consequences of loss of pay and  allowances. It puts an inedible stigma on the officer  affecting his future career. A reduction in rank  likewise may be by way of punishment or it may be an  innocuous thing. If the Government servant has a right  to a particular rank, then the very reduction from that  rank will operate as a penalty, for he will then lose the  emoluments and privileges of that rank. If, however,  he has no right to the particular rank, his reduction  from an officiating higher rank to his substantive lower  rank will not ordinarily be a punishment. But the mere  fact that the servant has not title to the post or the rank  and the Government has, by contract express or  implied, or under the rules, the right to reduce him to a  lower post does not mean that an order of reduction of  a servant to a lower post or rank cannot in any  circumstances be a punishment. The real test for  determining whether the reduction in such cases is or  is not by way of punishment is to find out if the order  for the reduction also visits the servant with any penal  consequences. Thus if the order entails or provides for  the forfeiture of his pay or allowances or the loss of his  seniority in his substantive rank or the stoppage or  postponement of his future chances of promotion, then  that circumstance may indicate that although in form  the Government had purported to exercise its right to  terminate the employment or to reduce the servant to a  lower rank under the terms of the contract of  employment or under the rules, in truth and reality the  Government has terminated the employment as and by  way of penalty. The use of the expression "terminate"  or "discharge" is not conclusive. In spite of the use of  such innocuous expressions, the court has to apply the  two tests mentioned above, namely, (1) whether the  servant had a right to the post or the rank or (2)  whether he has been visited with evil consequences of

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

the kind hereinbefore referred to. If the case satisfies  either of the two tests then it must be held that the  servant has been punished and the termination of his  service must be taken as a dismissal or removal from  service or the reversion to his substantive rank must be  regarded as a reduction in rank and if the requirements  of the rules and Art. 311, which give protection to  Government servant have not been complied with, the  termination of the service or the reduction in rank must  be held to be wrongful and in violation of the  constitutional right of the servant." (Emphasis supplied is ours)

       Thus, the order of discharge simplcitor, prima facie, is not punitive, it being  in terms of Punjab Police Rule12.21 but the question still is whether the incident  which led to the passing of that order was motive or inducing factor or was the  foundation of order of discharge. The test to determine whether the misconduct is ’motive’ or the  ’foundation’ of an order of discharge was laid down after exhaustively dealing  with the case law on the topic in the case of Radhey shyam Gupta v. U.P. State  Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. & Anr. [(1999) 2 SCC 21] as follows : "It will be noticed from the above decisions that the  termination of the services of a temporary servant or  one on probation, on the basis of adverse entries or on  the basis of an assessment that his work is not  satisfactory will not be punitive inasmuch as the above  facts are merely the motive and not the foundation.  The reason why they are the motive is that the  assessment is not done with the object of finding out  any misconduct on the part of the officer, as stated by  Shah, J. (as he then was) in Ram Narayan Das case  (AIR 1961 SC 177 : (1961) 1 SCR 606 : (1961) 1 LLJ  552). It is done only with a view to decide whether he  is to be retained or continued in service. The position  is not different even if a preliminary enquiry is held  because the purpose of a preliminary enquiry is to find  out if there is prima facie evidence or material to  initiate a regular departmental enquiry. It has been so  decided in Champaklal case (AIR 1964 SC 1854 :  (1964) 1 LLJ 752). The purpose of the preliminary  enquiry is not to find out misconduct on the part of the  officer and if a termination follows without giving an  opportunity, it will not be bad. Even in a case where a  regular departmental enquiry is started, a charge-memo  issued, reply obtained, and an enquiry officer is  appointed - if at that point of time, the enquiry is  dropped and a simple notice of termination is passed,  the same will not be punitive because the enquiry  officer has not recorded evidence nor given any  findings on the charges. That is what is held in Sukh  Raj Bahadur case [AIR 1968 SC 1089 : (1968) 3 SCR  234 : (1970) 1 LLJ 373) and in Benjamin case (1967)  1 LLJ 718 (SC)]. In the latter case, the departmental  enquiry was stopped because the employer was not  sure of establishing the guilt of the employee. In all  these cases, the allegations against the employee  merely raised a cloud on his conduct and as pointed by  Krishna Iyer, J. in Gujarat Steel Tubes case [(1980) 2  SCC 593 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 197] the employer was  entitled to say that he would not continue an employee  against whom allegations were made the truth of  which the employer was not interested to ascertain. In  fact, the employer by opting to pass a simple order of  termination as permitted by the terms of appointment  or as permitted by the rules was conferring a benefit on

4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

the employee by passing a simple order of termination  so that the employee would not suffer from any stigma  which would attach to the rest of his career if a  dismissal or other punitive order was passed. The  above are all examples where the allegations whose  truth has not been found, and were merely the motive.  But in cases where the termination is preceded by an  enquiry and evidence is received and findings as to  misconduct of a definitive nature are arrived at behind  the back of the officer and where on the basis of such a  report, the termination order is issued, such an order  will be violative of the principles of natural justice  inasmuch as the purpose of the enquiry is to find out  the truth of the allegations with a view to punish him  and not merely to gather evidence for a future regular  departmental enquiry. In such cases, the termination is  to be treated as based or founded upon misconduct and  will be punitive. These are obviously not cases where  the employer feels that there is a mere cloud against  the employee’s conduct but are cases where the  employer has virtually accepted the definitive and  clear findings of the enquiry officer, which are all  arrived at behind the back of the employee - even  though such acceptance of findings is not recorded in  the order of termination. That is why the misconduct is  the foundation and not merely the motive in such  cases." (Emphasis supplied is ours)

       Thus the principle that in order to determine whether the misconduct is  motive or foundation of order of termination, the test to be applied is to ask the  question as to what was the ’object of the enquiry’.  If an enquiry or an assessment  is done with the object of finding out any misconduct on the part of the employee  and for that reason his services are terminated, then it would be punitive in nature.   On the other hand, if such an enquiry or an assessment is aimed at determining the  suitability of an employee for a particular job, such termination would be  termination simplicitor and not punitive in nature.  This principle was laid down  by Shah, J (as he then was) as early as 1961 in the case of State of Orissa v. Ram  Narayan Das [(1961) (1) SCR 606].  It was held that one should look into ’object  or purpose of the enquiry’ and not merely hold the termination to be punitive  merely because of an antecedent enquiry. Whether it (order of termination)  amounts to an order of dismissal depends upon the nature of the enquiry, if any,  the proceedings taken therein and the substance of the final order passed on such  enquiry.  On the facts of that case, the termination of a probationer was upheld  inasmuch as the purpose of the enquiry was held to be to find out if the employee  could be confirmed. The purpose of the enquiry was not to find out if he was  guilty of any misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification.          In the case of Mathew B. Thomas v. Kerala State Civil Supply  Corporation Ltd. & Ors. [(2003) 3 SCC 263], it was observed that  the fagade of  the termination order may be simplicitor, but the real face behind it is to get rid of  the services of a probationer on the basis of misconduct.  In such cases it becomes  necessary to travel beyond the order of termination simplicitor to find out what in  reality is the background and what weighed with the employer to terminate the  services of a probationer.  In that process, it also becomes necessary to find out  whether efforts were made to find out the suitability of the person to continue in  service or he is in reality removed from the service on the foundation of his  misconduct.   In this case the respondent Corporation, in terms of clause 2 of the  appointment order terminated the services of the appellant, who was a probationer,  on charges of grave misconduct and repeated dereliction of duty tantamounting to  unsatisfactory performance.  It was his duty to inspect all the commodities  received by the Corporation at the depots and to verify the quality of goods in  conformity with the specifications given by the Head Office.  It was alleged that  he had betrayed the confidence reposed in him as a responsible officer of the  Corporation by accepting sub-standard quality goods in collusion with suppliers  for undue pecuniary benefits.  The termination Orders were upheld by this court.

5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

       In the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of  Medical Sciences & Anr. [2002 (1) SCC 520], this Court laid down the test to  determine the nature of the termination order, i.e. whether the termination is  punitive or simplicitor.  The court observed that One of the judicially involved  tests to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive is to see  whether prior to the termination there was (a) a full scale formal enquiry (b) into  allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct which (c) culminated in a  finding of guilt.  If all three factors are present the termination has been held to be  punitive irrespective of the form of the termination order.  Conversely, if any one  of the three factors is missing, the termination has to be upheld. Krishna Iyer, J in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel  Tubes Mazdoor Sabha [(1980) 2 SCC 593] observed that a termination effected  because the master is satisfied of the misconduct and of the consequent desirability  of terminating the service of the delinquent servant, is a dismissal. If there is  suspicion of misconduct the master may say that he does not wish to bother about  it and may not go into his guilt but may feel like not keeping a man he is not  happy with. He may not like to investigate nor take the risk of continuing a  dubious servant. Then it is not dismissal but termination simplicitor, if no injurious  record of reasons or punitive pecuniary cut-back on his full terminal benefits is  found. For, in fact, misconduct is not then the moving factor in the discharge. In  other words, it will be a case of motive if the master, after gathering some prima  facie facts, does not really wish to go into their truth but decides merely not to  continue a dubious employee. The master does not want to decide or direct a  decision about the truth of the allegations. But if he conducts an enquiry only for  the purpose of proving the misconduct and the employee is not heard, it is a case  where the enquiry is the foundation and the termination will be bad.         In the light of the above legal position, we will now determine whether, in  substance, the order of discharge in the present case is punitive in nature.  For this  purpose it would be necessary to ascertain, firstly, the ’nature of enquiry’ i.e.  whether the termination is preceded by full scale formal enquiry into allegations  involving misconduct on the part of the respondent, which culminated in the  finding of guilt, and secondly the ’purpose of the enquiry’, i.e. whether the  purpose of the enquiry is to find out any misconduct on part of the employee or it  is aimed at finding out as to the respondent being unlikely to prove as an efficient  police officer.     According to the facts on record, no enquiry of the nature specified above,  was held in the present case.  It is a case of discharge simplicitor.  Nothing much  turns upon the observations made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police in his  order dated October 8, 1993 while deciding the appeal of the respondent.   Respondent consumed liquor and misbehaved with a lady constable.  He was  medically examined.  On this basis, coming to the conclusion that he was unlikely  to prove himself an efficient Police Officer, an order of discharge under Punjab  Police Rule, 12.21 was passed.  There was no enquiry.  There was no stigma of  punishment.  It seems that while deciding the appeal of the respondent, the Deputy  Inspector General of Police has referred to prima facie finding out of approved  facts as a departmental enquiry and the observations of Deputy Inspector General  of Police have been misconstrued by courts below. The nature of enquiry was preliminary and not a full scale formal enquiry  so as to lead to the inference that the object of the enquiry is to determine the guilt  of the respondent.  The basis of the discharge in the present case was not the  misconduct on the part of the respondent, his services were terminated under Rule  12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 considering the standards of discipline  expected from police personnel.           In State of Punjab & Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh [(2002) 9 SCC 636], an order  of discharge passed under the Punjab Police Rule 12.21 read as under : "It has been reported to me by In-charge of PTC,  Ladha Kofthi, Sangrur, Inspector Joginder Singh, RI  Police Lines, Faridkot and Inspector Sadhu Ram, PS  City Kot Kapura that the act and conduct of Const.  Bhagwan Singh, No. 1819/Fdkt. on the whole is not  satisfactory and he is unlikely to become a good police  officer. I am also satisfied with their reports. I,  Jasminder Singh, IPS, SSP/Faridkot being competent  authority do hereby discharge Const. Bhagwan Singh,  No. 1819/Fdk. from service w.e.f. today i.e. 4-9-1992

6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

A.N. under PPR 12.21 as he is found to be unlikely to  prove a good police officer."

       The aforesaid order of discharge had been held to be illegal by the District  Judge and the judgment of the District Judge was affirmed by the High Court.   Allowing the appeal of the State, this Court held that the order of discharge to the  extent it stated that the officer was unlikely to prove a good police officer, was in  terms of the relevant Rule 12.21.  Even in respect of the sentence in the impugned  order that the performance of the officer on the whole was ’not satisfactory’, this  Court held that that also does not amount to any stigma.  The contention urged on  behalf of the employee that the reference in the impugned order to the reports of  the Inspectors on the basis of which the assessment was made would itself amount  to stigma was rejected.         The lower court and the High Court, placing reliance on the case of  Rajinder Kaur (supra) held the termination invalid. The reliance on the said  decision is totally misplaced.  In that case, on an allegation made by the  department against the appellant that she spent two nights with a constable, an  investigation was caused to be made into the said allegation against her conduct  and on the basis of that investigation the impugned order of discharge was made  by the Superintendent of Police after an enquiry through a Deputy Superintendent  of Police regarding the conduct of the appellant. On the facts of the case, order of  discharge, though in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12.21 of the Punjab  Police Rules, 1934 was really founded on the misconduct as revealed in enquiry  into the allegation behind her back by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.  The  misconduct was the foundation of that order of discharge and, therefore, it was  quashed.   In the present case, order of termination cannot be held to be punitive in  nature.  The misconduct on behalf of the respondent was not the inducing factor  for the termination of the respondent. The preliminary enquiry was not done with  the object of finding out any misconduct on the part of the respondent, it was done  only with a view to determine the suitability of the respondent within the meaning  of Punjab Police Rule 12.21.  The termination was not founded on the misconduct  but the misbehaviour with a lady Constable and consumption of liquor in office  were considered to determine the suitability of the respondent for the job, in the  light of the standards of discipline expected from police personnel. For the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to sustain the impugned judgment.   In this view, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court is  set aside.  The parties shall bear their own costs.