EX-CONSTABLE BAJWINDER SINGLI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner joined as a Constable in the Police Department in the State of Punjab on 9.11.1989. He was ordered to be discharged under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules which provides that a Constable who is unlikely to prove an efficient poUce officer may be discharged within three years of enrollment. Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) reads as under: -

(2.) Although no appeal was provided against an order of discharge passed under Rule 12.21, yet the petitioner preferred a representation/appeal before the Inspector General of Police Punjab. Inspector General of Police while dismissing the representation observed that petitioner was a habitual absentee. This petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the order of discharge passed against the petitioner was stigmatic in nature and is liable to be set aside. For this, reliance was placed on State of Haryaoa and another V/s. Jagdish Chander, 1995 2 JT 108. It was held by their Lordships in the aforesaid judgment that whenever Superintendent of Police discharges a constable after recording a finding regarding indiscipline or being habitual absentee, the same would be stigmatic in nature and impediment for any future employment elsewhere; that such an order of discharge was liable to be set aside because the same was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice having been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the constable. A perusal of the order passed by the Superintendent of Police in the aforesaid case which has been reproduced in the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court shows that Superintendent of Police had found the constable to be a habitual absentee, negligent in the discharge of his duties and indisciplined.

(3.) In the present case, no such finding or conclusions have been recorded by the Superintendent of Police while passing the order of discharge. In the present case, the order of discharge1 cannot be termed to be stigmatic. Of course, in the order Annexure P2 passed by the Inspector General of Police, it has been found that the . petitioner is a habitual absentee. The order Annexure P2 passed by the Inspector General of Police was not in the discharge of any statutory authority and therefore, is a non-est order. As observed earlier no appeal is competent against an order of discharge passed by the Superintendent of Police under Rule 12.21. Any observation made by the Inspector General of Police while rejecting the representation, under the circumstances, cannot adversely affect the right of the petitioner. By way of an abundant caution, we direct that the observations made against the petitioner by the Inspector General of Police being habitual absentee be deleted and hold that the petitioner would not be debarred to seek any future employment only because of the order Annexure PI passed against him.