SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges an order issued on 01.06.1993 discharging the petitioner during his probation observing that he was not likely to prove to be an efficient police officer. The order is in challenge contending that the order was stigmatic and, therefore, the impugned order could not have been passed in favour of the petitioner in a normal departmental enquiry imputing misconduct. The counsel would rely on a judgment of this Court in Const. Surinder Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 2 ILR(P&H) 253 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, 2002 10 SCC 133. The Supreme Court was holding that the order of discharge in that case was not discharge simpliciter and it was stigmatic. The Supreme Court was considering the tenor of the order that read as follows:-

(2.) The counsel appearing on behalf of the State would point out that the judgment in Prithipal Singh was itself considered by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Versus Rajesh Kumar, 2006 12 SCC 418, but it chose not to follow the same by referring to a three member Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Versus Sukhwinder Singh, 2005 3 SCT 616. The contention in both the cases was that the order of discharge might conceal the true intentions. In such an event, there was a need to involve the police officer in a proper departmental enquiry and it could not have skirted the procedure and proceeded to pass an order of discharge to make it seem that there was nothing stigmatic about such an order.

(3.) Since the issue of whether the order passed was stigmatic or not, I believe that it will become relevant to reproduce the entire text of the order that was passed:-