RAKESH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed Constable by order dated 22.5.95, on compassionate grounds, on the death of his father, who died in harness in terms of Circular dated 10.6.94. While he was trying to find his feet, he was discharged vide order dated 11.7.95, passed by the Superintendent of Police under Regulation 59 of Police Regulations. He challenged this in O.A. No. 294/96 before SAT on the ground that he was not liable to be discharged under Regulation 59. His petition was resisted by State respondent on the ground that he could not be appointed on compassionate grounds because his elder brother had availed of this facility already. Petitioner refuted this and pointed out that his brother was appointed as "Boy orderly" under Regulation 60. The Tribunal on consideration of the matter tested petitioner's order of discharge in reference to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution and took the view that it did not attach any stigma or impose any punishment on him and therefore could not be faulted. It accordingly dismissed his application. Hence this writ petition.

(2.) PETITIONER 's case is that Respondent's stand was a contradiction in terms. On the one hand his order of discharge was purportedly passed under regulation 59 which empowers the Superintendent to discharge a recruit only "if he was unlikely to become police officer" and on the other it, was being attributed to his elr1er brother's alleged compassionate appointment. Mr. Chitale, GA, however justified the order on the plea that petitioner, on probation, could be discharged on month's notice in terms of his appointment order itself. According to him a mistake had crept in the order of discharge making it referable to Regulation 59. It is apparent on the face of Tribunal order that it proceeds on a wrong premise. The Tribunal seems to have lost sight of the facts that petitioner's discharge order was passed under Regulations 59 which vests power in the Superintendent to discharge a recruit if he was unlikely to become a satisfactory police officer and that respondents had taken a diametrically opposite stand that he was discharged because of his elder brother's compassionate appointment. If the order was taken to be passed under Regulation 59, it required to be tested in terms of its requirement viz whether petitioner was likely to become "a satisfactory police officer", which obviously would postulate observance of principles of natural justice. And if it was to be examined on the other stand taken by respondents that petitioner could not be appointed because of his elder brother's compassionate appointment, it would naturally involve an inquiry to ascertain the correct position.

(3.) THIS petition is accordingly allowed and petitioner's order of discharge set aside. He shall, but, be reinstated in service prospectively and would not be entitled to any service benefits for the disputed period. This shall also leave respondents free to proceed against him, if desired and so advised in accordance with law.