RAMINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed as a Special Police Officer (hereinafter referred to as ''SPO '') in terms of Section 17 of the Police Act, 1861. He was a daily wager. Before he could be absorbed as a Constable, his name was removed from the roll. No formal order of removing the name of the petitioner from the roll was passed. According to the petitioner, his name was removed from the roll as criminal case had been registered against him. He was acquitted of the criminal charge on 15 -11 -1999. Thereafter his application for re -employment was rejected by order dated 20 -7 -2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the name of the petitioner had been removed from roll on the basis of the criminal case, the petitioner was entitled to be re -employed. He has submitted that the removal of the name of the petitioner from the roll was by way of punishment. Since the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal charge the order of removal can no longer be sustained. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 1737 of 1999.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 in the written statement has contested the claim put forward by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner along with another S. P. O. has stolen one bag of rice. Consequently, criminal case was registered against them. The petitioner was a daily wager. He had been appointed under Section 17 of the Police Act which allows the Police Authorities to appoint residents of the neigbourhood where the threat to peace contemplated and the police forces ordinarily employed are considered not sufficient. Therefore the nature of enlistment of the petitioner was such that he cannot claim to be a member of the service. The petitioner has no right to hold the post of Constable. His services are not governed by the Punjab Police Rules. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right to reemployment. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the respondents have relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Parveen Kumar, Ex. S.P.O. v. Punjab State rendered in C.W.P. No. 17571 of 1998 reported in (2001 3 Serv. LR 290 (Punj and Hry.).

(3.) THERE is no dispute with the proposition of law that a public servant cannot be dismissed or removed from service as a measure of punishment without holding a due and proper enquiry. A public servant can only be dismissed or removed by way of punishment after complying with rules of natural justice. However, in the present case the petitioner could not claim the status of a Constable as he was never absorbed as such. The provisions of Punjab Police Rules would become applicable only after absorption of the petitioner as a Constable. In Parveen Kumar 's case (supra), the Division Bench was considering the case of some SPOs who had been discharged from service on the basis of complaints and without affording any opportunity of hearing to them. The Division Bench held that the discharge of the SPOs was one of the two options open to the respondents. The SPOs could have been either discharged or subjected to disciplinary proceedings. In the present case also the name of the petitioner has been merely removed from the roll. It is, therefore, a case of discharge of a daily wager. In the written statement, it is categorically stated that the activities of the petitioner were such that he was not found fit for the job of SPO. In other words, the work of the petitioner was not found satisfactory. That being so, the matter is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Parveen Kumar (supra). The petitioner was working on temporary basis. Therefore, he has no right to the post.