State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Singh
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.6659 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.6969 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.6969 of 2000)
Petitioner: State of Punjab & Ors.
Respondent: Bhagwan Singh
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.6659 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.6969 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.6969 of 2000)
Judges: M. JAGANNADHA RAO & M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 16, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Punjab Police Rules
Rule 12.21 – Discharge – Constable discharged as unlikely to become good police officer as performance not satisfactory – Order based on report of two Inspectors – If causes stigma and order is bad in law. Held that the order was valid as reference to report was necessary and discharge was during probation.
Held:
When a probationer is discharged during the period of probation and if for the purpose of discharge, a particular assessment of his work, is to be made, and the authorities referred to such an assessment, of his work, while passing the order of discharge, that cannot be held to amount to stigma. The reference in the impugned order to the reports of the inspectors on the basis of which the assessment was made, has also become necessary because the respondent was working under the said officers and it was their assessment that was referred to and that was the source for the opinion expressed by the competent authority to discharge the respondent. (Paras 4, 6)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. This is an appeal by the State of Punjab against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 12.8.99 passed in RSA No.3454 of 1998 affirming the judgment of the District Judge dated 6.8.98. The learned District Judge reversed the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit filed by the respondent seeking to set aside the order of discharge dated 4.9.92 passed by the competent authority and directed the reinstatement with all benefits. The question is whether the impugned order of discharge dated 4.9.92 is bad in law.
3. The impugned order dated 4.9.92 was passed by the competent authority. It reads as follows:
“It has been reported to me by in-charge of P.T.C. Ladha Kofthi, Sangrur, Inspector Joginder Singh R.I. Police Lines, Faridkot and Inspector Sadhu Ram, P.S. City Kot Kapura that the act and con-duct of Constable 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 Con-stable Bhagwan Singh 1819/Fdkt. from service w.e.f. today i.e. 4.9.92 A.N. under P.P.R. 12.21 as he is found to be unlikely to prove a good police officer.
4. The aforesaid order 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 applicable to the respondent. In our view, when a probationer is discharged during the period of probation and if for the purpose of discharge, a particular assessment of his work, is to be made, and the authorities referred to such an assessment, of his work, while passing the order of discharge, that cannot be held to amount to stigma.
5. The other sentence in the impugned order is, that the perfor-mance of the officer on the whole was “not satisfactory.” Even that does not amount to any stigma.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent however, contended that the reference in the impugned order to the reports of the inspectors on the basis of which the above assessment was made, would itself amount to stigma. This again cannot be accepted. The said refer-ence has also become necessary because the respondent was working under the said officers and it was their assessment that was referred to and that was the source for the opinion expressed by the competent authority to discharge the respondent. The learned District Judge and the High Court were, therefore in error in treating that the removal order caused stigma.
7. It was further contended that reporting officers when examined in court, denied having given such reports. By the date of evi-dence, they had retired. The learned District Judge acted in a perverse manner in relying upon the evidence of such witnesses who while they were in service reported as mentioned in the impugned order but who after retirement, denied having given such reports.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the High Court and of the District Judge are set aside and the order of the trial court is restored and the order of discharge is held valid.
9. The appeal stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. Special leave granted.
2. This is an appeal by the State of Punjab against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 12.8.99 passed in RSA No.3454 of 1998 affirming the judgment of the District Judge dated 6.8.98. The learned District Judge reversed the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit filed by the respondent seeking to set aside the order of discharge dated 4.9.92 passed by the competent authority and directed the reinstatement with all benefits. The question is whether the impugned order of discharge dated 4.9.92 is bad in law.
3. The impugned order dated 4.9.92 was passed by the competent authority. It reads as follows:
“It has been reported to me by in-charge of P.T.C. Ladha Kofthi, Sangrur, Inspector Joginder Singh R.I. Police Lines, Faridkot and Inspector Sadhu Ram, P.S. City Kot Kapura that the act and con-duct of Constable 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 Con-stable Bhagwan Singh 1819/Fdkt. from service w.e.f. today i.e. 4.9.92 A.N. under P.P.R. 12.21 as he is found to be unlikely to prove a good police officer.
4. The aforesaid order 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 applicable to the respondent. In our view, when a probationer is discharged during the period of probation and if for the purpose of discharge, a particular assessment of his work, is to be made, and the authorities referred to such an assessment, of his work, while passing the order of discharge, that cannot be held to amount to stigma.
5. The other sentence in the impugned order is, that the perfor-mance of the officer on the whole was “not satisfactory.” Even that does not amount to any stigma.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent however, contended that the reference in the impugned order to the reports of the inspectors on the basis of which the above assessment was made, would itself amount to stigma. This again cannot be accepted. The said refer-ence has also become necessary because the respondent was working under the said officers and it was their assessment that was referred to and that was the source for the opinion expressed by the competent authority to discharge the respondent. The learned District Judge and the High Court were, therefore in error in treating that the removal order caused stigma.
7. It was further contended that reporting officers when examined in court, denied having given such reports. By the date of evi-dence, they had retired. The learned District Judge acted in a perverse manner in relying upon the evidence of such witnesses who while they were in service reported as mentioned in the impugned order but who after retirement, denied having given such reports.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the High Court and of the District Judge are set aside and the order of the trial court is restored and the order of discharge is held valid.
9. The appeal stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
