SANJIV KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order or repatriation dated 07.03.1992 and order of discharge dated 15.05.1992 (Annexure P -5). As per the averments made in the writ petition, petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 06.05.1991. He was sent to Police Training College, Madhuban for the Basic Training of Recruit Course on 01.07.1991. He absented and, therefore, he has' been vide order dated 15.05.1992 (Annexure P -5) discharged from service invoking the powers under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules. The assertion of the petitioner is that since the petitioner has been discharged because of his absence from duty, it would amount to a stigma and a departmental enquiry was required to be held against him.

(2.) THIS contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rajesh Kumar, : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 317, where it is mentioned that a termination simpliciter resulting in discharge of a Constable by mentioning that he is unlikely to prove an efficient police officer as provided under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules does not amount to aspersion on the work and conduct of the employee. It is a simple order of termination, which is not based on any misconduct and hence the departmental enquiry is not required. In view of the above authoritative judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same stands dismissed.