SAMUNDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing order dated 26.5.1992 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh (respondent No. 3) under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short, 'the Rules') and the orders passed by Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') dismissing their original applications and review applications.

(2.) The petitioners were appointed as Constables in Chandigarh Police w.e.f. 21.1.1991. After one month's training, they were posted in the Control Room. In the course of service, they were found absent on different occasions. For this they were warned from time to time. They were also awarded penalty of censure on the charge of remaining absent from duty. On receipt of report from their immediate superior that they were not serious in performing duties assigned to them, respondent No. 3 passed order dated 26.5.1992 under Rule 12.21 of the Rules vide which he discharged the petitioners from service by observing that they are not likely to prove efficient police officers. They challenged the order of discharge by filing applications under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which were registered as OA No. 1103-CH of 1992-Rajinder Singh and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others, O.A. No. 1240-CH of 1992-Samunder Singh v. Union of India and others, O.A. No. 1243-CH of 1992-Anand Sarup v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others, O.A. No. 1472-CH of 1992-Ujjal Singh v. Union of India Territory of Chandigarh and others, O.A. No. 1449-PB of 1992-Sadik Masih v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others and OA No. 442-PB of 1993-Swaran Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others. Shri Taqdir Singh, who was also discharged from service under Rule 12.21 of the Rules vide order dated 26.6.1992 passed by respondent No. 3 filed OA No. 1104-HR of 1992. The same was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 31.5.2000. Thereafter, by an order dated 4.8.2000, the Tribunal dismissed OA Nos. 1103-CH of 1992, 1243-CH of 1992, 1472-CH of 1992 and 1449-PB of 1992. OA No. 1240-CH of 1992 was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.8.2000 and OA No. 442-PB of 1993 was dismissed on 1.9.2000. Review applications filed by three of the petitioners, namely, Anand Sarup, Sadik Masih and Ujjal Singh which were registered as R.A. Nos. 50, 51 and 52 of 2000 were dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 27.9.2000. However, leave was granted to the applicants to make representations to the Inspector General of Police as was done in O.A. No. 1240-CH of 1992-Samunder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others vide order dated 20.8.2000 and a direction was given to the officer concerned to pass appropriate order within 2 months. The petitioners then filed representations for reinstatement by contending that similarly situated persons, namely, Bikram Singh, Manga Singh and Ashok Kumar, who were also discharged under Rule 12.21 of the Rules, had been given re-appointment. Their representations were rejected by Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh. Appeals filed by them were rejected by Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration as not maintainable and O.A. No. 15-PB of 2001 filed by one of them, namely, Ujjal Singh was dismissed by the Tribunal.

(3.) Shri Pawan Kumar argued that even though the language of the order passed by respondent No. 3 under Rule 12.21 do not suggest that it was stigmatic, the termination of the services of the petitioners was, infact, and in substance, punitive in character because the same was founded on the allegation of misconduct, i.e., absence from duty and the Tribunal committed a serious legal error by treating it as a case of termination simplicitor. He further argued that the Tribunal was duty-bound to lift the veil to find out the true character of order dated 26.5.1992 and its failure to do so has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He relied on the decision of this Court in Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and others,2002 2 RSJ 59 and argued that even in the case of discharge under Rule 12.21, the compliance of the rules of natural justice is sine qua non if it is founded on misconduct. He then argued that rejection by the Inspector General of Police of the representations made by the petitioners for re-appointments as was done in the cases of Bikram Singh, Manga Singh and Ashok Kumar should be declared illegal and quashed on the ground of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because he did not give any reason for discriminating similarly situated persons and a direction be issued for their re-appointment with effect from the date other Constables were re-appointed.