http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LUDHIANA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DWARKA DAS ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/11/1978

BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. DESAI, D.A.

CITATION:  1979 AIR  336            1979 SCR  (2) 405  1979 SCC  (3) 789  CITATOR INFO :  O          1990 SC  57  (2,5)

ACT:      Punjab  Police   Rules,  1934.  Rule  12-21.  power  of discharge, whether  exercisable  beyond  3  years  temporary service of police officers.

HEADNOTE:      The respondent  writ petitioners were constables of the Punjab State  Government, and  had put  in more than 3 years service, when  they were  discharged for inefficiency, under Rule 12.21  of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. the High Court allowed their  writ petitions  challenging the  validity  of their discharge-orders.  It was  contended by the State that although the  respondents had  put in  more than three years service, their  appointments were  temporary  and  could  be terminated for  that reason,  even if  the termination could not strictly  b said  to fall  within the  purview  of  rule 12.21.      Dismissing the appeal. the Court ^      HELD: If  rules 12.2(3) and 12.21 are read together, it will appear that the maximum period of probation in the case of a  police officer of the rank of constable is three years and the  power of  discharge cannot  be exercised under rule 12.21 after expiry of that period. If it is proposed to deal with an inefficient police officer after the expiry of three years, it is necessary to do so in accordance with the rules of Chapter  XVI of  the Rules  which makes provision for the imposition of  various punishments  including dismissal from the police force. [408A-B]      The High  Court was  not justified  in holding  that  a constable who  had obtained  a certificate  under rule 12.32 cannot be  dealt with under rule 12.21 "I‘hat certificate is meant to  serve the  purpose of section 8 of the Police Act. 1861, by vesting a public officer with the powers, functions and privileges  of a  police officer and has to be issued on his appointment  as such.  The certificate  is a  letter  of authority and  enables the  police officer to enter upon his duties as a police officer. It has to be granted almost From the inception  and it  is not  correct to  say what the mere issue of the certificate puts its holder beyond the reach of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

rule 12.21  even if it is found that he is unlikely to prove an efficient police officer and has not completed the period of three years of his enrolment. [408D-G]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL, APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1286, 1287 and 2511 of 1969-      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  20-8-1968 and 3-4- 1969 of  the Punjab  and Haryana  High Court  in Civil  Writ Nos.800/66, 2625/65 and LPA No 141 of 1969.      Harbans Singh  and R.  N. Sachthey for the Appellant in all the appeals.      E. C.  Agarwala and M. L. Srivastava for the Respondent in C.A. 1286/69. 406      H.K. Puri for the Respondent in C. A. 1287/69      N. N. Keswani for the Respondent in C.A. 2511/69      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      SHINGHAL,  J.   These  three  appeals  by  certificates granted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana are directed against two  judgments of  that court dated August 20? 1966, and another  judgment of that court dated November 22, 1968. The High  Court first decided the writ petition of constable Dwarka Das, which is the subject matter of appeal No.1286 of 1969, and  disposed of  the other  two writ petitions, which are the  subject matter  of appeals  Nos. 1287  and 2511  of 1969, on  the basis  of that  judgment. These  three appeals therefore Raise  common questions of law and have been heard together at  the request  of learned counsel for the parties and will be disposed of by a common judgment      The writ  petitioners  in  all  the  three  cases  were recruited as  constables in  the police-force  of the Punjab State. It  is not  in dispute  before us  that (i) they were police-officers of  the State,  (ii) they  were enrolled  as police-officers, (iii) they had put in more than three years service after  their recruitment  and enrolment  as  police- officers, and (iv) they were discharged under the provisions of  rule   12.21  of   the     Punjab  Police  Rules,  1934, (hereinafter referred  to as  the Rules  and not  by way  of punishment under the provisions of Chapter XVI of the Rules. No attempt  has been  made to  distinguish one case from the others on  facts. On  the other hand learned counsel for the parties are  in agreement  that the facts of the three cases are quite  similar and they raise the common question of law whether the  orders of discharge were valid. The respondents challenged the  validity of  those orders  by writ petitions which were  allowed by  the impugned  judgments of  the High Court and the three appeals are before us for that reason.      It has  been argued  by Mr  Harbans Singh, on behalf of the appellant  State, that  even though  the respondents had put in  more than  three years service as police-officers of the State  Government, their appointments were temporary and could be  terminated for that reason even if the termination could not  strictly be  said to  fall within  the purview of rule 12.21  of the  Rules. that in fact is the only question II for  consideration in  these appeals  and can  easily  be answered with reference to the provisions of the Police Act, 1861, hereinafter refer red to as the Act, and the Rules. 407      Section 1  of the  Act defines  "Police" to include all persons who A shall be enrolled under it. Section 2 provides that  the   entire  police  establishment  under  the  State Government shall be deemed to be one police-force, and shall

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

be  formally   enrolled.  It   further  provides   that  the conditions of  service of  the members  of  the  subordinate ranks of the police-force shall be such as may be determined by the  State Government. Section 8 is also relevant, for it expressly provides  that every  police-officer appointed  to the  police-force  of  the  State  (other  than  an  officer mentioned in  section 4), shall receive on his appointment a certificate in  the form  annexed to  the Act,  by virtue of which he  shall be  vested with  the powers,  functions  and privileges of  a police-officer. The certificate states that the police-officer  concerned has been appointed a member of the police-force  under the Act, and vested with the powers. functions  and   privileges   of   a   police-officer.   The certificate is  not therefore  the order  of appointment  or enrolment, but  is subsequent  to the  appointment  and  the enrolment, even  though it  is a  part  of  the  process  of appointment and  enrolment, in  as much as it certifies that the  police-officer  has  been  vested  with  the  necessary powers, functions  and privileges  of a  police-officer. The certificate  does  not  however  have  any  bearing  on  the question whether  its holder  is a  permanent or a temporary police-officer, for  that  is  a  matter  which  has  to  be governed by  the other  conditions of his service. It is not in dispute  before us  that such certificates were issued to all the  three  respondents  and  that  they  functioned  as police-officers for more than three years.      Chapter XII of the Rules deals with the appointment and enrolment of  police-officers.  Clause  (3)  of  rule  12.2. provides, inter alia, as follows,-      "(3) All  appointments of  enrolled police officers are      on probation  according to  the rules  in this  chapter      applicable to each rank."      It is  therefore obvious  that as  the respondents were enrolled police officers, they were on probation. The period of probation  has not  been specified in the Rules, but rule 12.21 provides  for the  discharge of an inefficient police- officer as follows-      "12.21.   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 enrolment.  There shall be no appeal                against an  order  of  discharge  under  this                rule." 408      So if  rules 12.2(3)  and 12.21  are read  together, it will appear that the maximum period of probation in the case of 3  police-officer of  the rank  of  constable  is  three, years, for  the Superintendent  OF Police  concerned has the power to  discharge him  within that period. It follows that the power  of discharge cannot be exercised under rule 12.21 after the  expiry of the period of three years. If therefore it is  proposed to  deal with  an inefficient police-officer after the expiry of that period, it is necessary to do so in accordance with  the rules of Chapter XVI of the Rules which makes provision  for the  imposition of  various punishments including  dismissal   from  the  police-force.  It  is  not permissible to ignore those rules and make a simple order of discharge under rule 12.21 after the expiry of the period of three years  for  that  will  attract  article  311  of  the Constitution. The  Superintendent of  Police concerned could not have  ignored that requirement of the law and terminated the services  of the  three respondents  after the expiry of the period  of three  years  from  their  enrolment  in  the police-force of the State.      The High  Court therefore  rightly set aside the orders

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

of termination  of the services of the three respondents and to that  extent the  impugned judgments  are correct. But we are constrained  to say that it was not justified in holding that "a  constable who has obtained a certificate under rule 12.22 cannot  be dealt  with under rule 12.21", and that "if he is  to be  removed from  service, procedure prescribed in Chapter XVI  has to be followed." The reason is that, as has been shown,  the certificate  prescribed under rule 12.22 is meant to  serve the  purpose of  section 8  of  the  Act  by vesting a  police-officer with  the  powers,  functions  and privileges of  a police-officer, and has to be issued on his appointment as  such. The  certificate is  thus a  letter of authority, and enables the police-officer concerned to enter upon his  duties as  a police-officer.  It has to be granted almost from  the inception,  when a  person is appointed and enrolled as  police-officer, and  it is  not correct  to say that the  mere issue  of the  certificate  puts  its  holder beyond the  reach of  rule 12.21 even if it is found that he is unlikely to prove an efficient police-officer and has not completed the  period of  three years  after his  enrolment. Except for  this slight  clarification, we  find no merit in these appeals and they are dismissed with costs. M.R.                                      Appeals dismissed. 409