ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 13.12.1990 (Annexure P-1) wherein the petitioner, who was serving as Constable in Gurgaon District, was discharged from service, with immediate effect, under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to Haryana State (for short, the 'Rules'), by respondent No. 3. Challenge has also been laid to the speaking order (Annexure P-4), passed by respondent No. 2, in pursuance of the directions of this Court whereby his appeal-cum-representation, filed against the order of discharge, had been rejected. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he had joined service as Constable in the Gurgaon District on 08.01.1989 and thereafter, he was transferred to Government Railway Police, Haryana and was deputed for training which he completed successfully. While on patrol duty on 25.11.1990, the trigger of the rifle handled by the petitioner was inadvertently pressed and one shot went of which hit the wall of the water post at the platform and a splinter caused a minor injury to a passenger. The order of discharge was passed thereafter under Rule 12.21 of the Rules which was an order in camouflage and innocuously worded to the dismissal of the petitioner without any enquiry and against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner filed CWP No. 9550 of 3992 titled Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana in which a direction was issued by the Division Bench of this Court on 15.09.1992 to pass a speaking order. In pursuance of the same, a speaking order was passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the discharge has been upheld. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed on the ground that the said order is liable to be quashed as the same is by way of penalty and could not have been passed without an enquiry contemplated under Rule 16.24 of the Rules.

(2.) The State, in its reply, stated that the petitioner had tried to load his rifle on 25.11.1990 due to which the bullet had gone off and the cartridge hit against the water post and some splinters from the structures caused injury to a passenger. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Railway, Hisar found the petitioner guilty of negligence in the discharge of his duty and was adjudged unfit to become an efficient police officer. The protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India was not applicable in the present case since the petitioner was discharged under Rule 12.21 of the Rules, within the period of probation and no enquiry was required. The discharge order was not punitive and passed on the ground that he was unfit to become a police officer. Apart from the said act of extreme negligence, he had been wilfully absent from duty on four occasions which was also taken into consideration while deciding the representation.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no enquiry was conducted and the petitioner had been penalized and there is violation of the principles of natural justice.