SAWARAN PURI Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was enlisted as as Constable in the Government Railway Police, Haryana, on December 18 1967, under Section 7 of the Police Act, in accordance with the conditions of service laid down in that Act and the Punjab Police Rules framed thereunder. The Petitioner was sent to the Recruits Training Centre, Jahan Khelan, district Hoshiarpur, to undergo the necessary training prescribed for the recruits of the Police Force of the Punjab and Haryana States. He successfully completed the training and passed the Recruits Training Course in October, 1968. He was thereafter posted in the Government Railway Police Lines, Ambala City, where he remained for a few days and thereafter was put on telephone duty at the residence of the Assistant Inspector General, Government Railway Police, Haryana, at Ambala Cantt. He was discharged from service by Shri Shamsher Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Admn.), G.R.P. Haryana, under Police Rule 12. 21 by order dated December 9, 1968. with effect from that very day. The Petitioner then filed the present writ petition in this Court on February 28, l969, which was admitted on March 10, 1969.

(2.) THE grounds of attack in the writ petition are that under Police Rule 12. 21 only the Superintendent of Police can discharge a Constable and not the Deputy Superintendent of Police And the order passed by Respondent 2 is, therefore, without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. The second ground is that the power under Police Rule 12. 21 is arbitrary as no guide -lines have been indicated so that the Superintendent of Police can discriminate between one Constable and another and discharge any Constable that he likes from service even if he is likely to prove to be an efficient police officer. Both these pleas have been controverted in the written statement.

(3.) FROM the Rules, set out above, it is clear beyond doubt that as far as the Government Railway Police is concerned, the Deputy Superintendent (Admn.), exercises the powers or the Superintendent of Police of a civil district. The order of discharge made by Respondent 2, therefore, was with jurisdiction and cannot be set aside on that ground.