LAWS(P&H)-1984-10-86

STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAM NIWAS

Decided On October 17, 1984
STATE OF HARYANA Appellant
V/S
RAM NIWAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom the suit for declaration was dismissed by the trial Court, but decreed in appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff who was a constable, filed the suit for a declaration to the effect that the order dated March 6, 1976, Exhibit PW-2/1, passed by the Commandant, fifth Battalion H.A.P., Madhuban, Karnal, vide which he was discharged from service was illegal, null and void and inoperative being against the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules (hereinafter called the Rules) and the Police Act. The plaintiff at the material time was working as a constable in the fifth Battalion, H.A.P., Madhuban. On March 6, 1976, he got down from a truck on return from leave. It appears that he got down therefrom at Gate No. 2 of the H.A.P. Complex, Madhuban, where the D.I.G. of the H.P.A. happened to be present at the moment. He called him and found that he was wearing the turban which did not match with his uniform, and also private juta on his feet. It was believed that the wearing of the unauthorised turban and the private juta with his uniform was against the Rules. Thus, the D.I.G., either orally or otherwise, referred the matter to the Commandant of the Battalion to which the plaintiff was attached. The Commandant then passed the impugned order under Rule 12.21 of the Rules, discharging him from service. The said order is in Hindi language and when translated into English language reads, -

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that under Rule 12.21 of the Rules, a constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer could be discharged from service at any time within three years of his enrolment. Since the plaintiff was a temporary hand and the period of three years had not elapsed since his enrolment, he was discharged from service under the said rule. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order could not be said to be illegal in any way as it was passed in the exercise of the powers conferred under the rule. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Jai Singh v. Sate of Haryana,1977 92 SLR 371, wherein the vires of the said rule were upheld by the Full Bench of this Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent contended that the power to discharge under Rule 12.21 of the Rules was not disputed. According to the learned counsel, the order discharging the plaintiff from service, Exhibit PW-2/1, is a speaking order of discharge. Reasons have been given therein for discharging the plaintiff from service which, according to the learned counsel, are not sustainable in law. Therefore, argued the learned counsel, the order of discharge was wrong, illegal and was, thus, vitiated. In support of the contention, the learned counsel placed reliance upon Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India, 1984 1 SLJ 428.