STATE OF HARYANA Vs. JAGDISH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(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 dicharged from service as a constable, exercising the power under rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, (for short, 'the Rules'). The respondent impunged 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. Thus, this appeal by special leave. Rule 12.21 reads thus:

(3.) It would thus be clear from the order of discharge that it is not an order of discharge simpliciter. On the other hand, the S.P. considered the record and found him to be habitual absence, negligent to his duty and indisciplined. The findings of habitual absence and indiscipline necessarily cast stigma on his career 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 an 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.