PARVEEN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the order dated 21.7.1998 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur whereby the representations filed by the petitioners were rejected and the orders discharging them from service upheld. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition may first be noticed.

(2.) THE State Government approved the proposal to appoint about 9000 Special Police Officers (SPOs) for raising five Auxiliary Battalions of 1000 SPOs, each and 4160 SPOs for special police pickets who are also called Auxiliary Constables. A standing order pertaining to their appointment and further promotional avenues had been framed and a copy thereof was sent by the Director General of Police, Punjab to all the Senior Superintendents of Police in the State and also to the Inspector Generals of Police. According to the Standing Orders an SPO is to be selected from the general public who is considered to be suitable for further induction as a constable and the selection is made by the Senior Superintendent of Police assisted by two Deputy Superintendents of Police, one of whom is a Scheduled caste. Their educational qualifications, physical standards and the selection process are mentioned in the standing orders. The appointment is made on daily wages as fixed from time to time. As per the standing order, an SPO whose work and conduct is not found satisfactory can be discharged any time by the Senior Superintendent of Police without the issue of any notice. An SPO is eligible for enrolment, as a constable after one year of service which period has now been reduced to six months provided his work and conduct is found satisfactory by the District Senior Superintendent of Police, The Senior Superintendent of Police selects Constables from amongst the eligible SPOs/Auxiliary Constables and after their selection as such they are governed by the Punjab Police Rules. Petitioners were appointed as SPOs on daily wages on different dates some time between October 1990 to October, 1993 on the dates mentioned against their names in Annexure P -1 to the writ petition. They worked as such for some time and thereafter they were discharged from service some time in the year 1995/1996. No order terminating their services had been communicated to them and they made several representations to respondent No. 3 to the effect that they be allowed to continue to work as SPOs and that their orders of discharge be revoked. It was alleged that they had been discharged in order to make room for some other persons whom respondent No. 3 wanted to appoint under political pressure. When no orders were passed on their representations they filed Civil Writ Petition 3819 of 1998 in this Court challenging their discharge from service. This petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench on 17.3.1998 and the same was disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to examine and decide the representations filed by the petitioners by passing a speaking order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, it is in pursuance to these directions that respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order dated 21.7.1998 rejecting the representations. A perusal of this detailed order would show that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur had discharged the petitioners from service on receipt of some complaints against them. Some of the petitioners are alleged to have remained absent from duty without leave for some time, whereas petitioners No. 1 and 7 are said to have mis -conducted themselves by slopping trucks with the intention of taking money from the drivers. Petitioner No. 4 is said to have been found medically unfit and yet he had been appointed.

(3.) WE have heard counsel for the parties.