JAGJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the decision of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Patiala reversing, on appeal, the decision of the trial Court decreeing the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) The plaintiff, Jagjit Singh was appointed as a direct recruit to the post of Prosecuting Sub-Inspector by the Inspector General of Police on 31st May, 1952. He was to be on probation for a period of three years, as required by Rule 12.8 of the Punjab Police Rules , 1934 (hereinafter referred to the Police Rules). Rule 19.26 of the Police Rules provides for the training of Prosecuting Sub-Inspectors. It is clearly provided therein that no Sub-Inspector, who does not pass the examination from the Training School, Phillur, would be entitled to confirmation. Jagjit Singh was sent to Phillaur for training; but he failed to pass in one subject. He was retained in service for two years after the period of probation presumably to give him an opportunity to pass the examination, as he failed to pass the examination he was discharged from service on the 30th of April, 1957. Jagjit Singh was dissatisfied with this order and called the same in question by instituting the present suit. His contention was that he automatically stood confirmed after the period of probation had expired; that the extention of the period of probation from three years to five years was illegal; that the order of his discharge amounted to an order of removal from service and as the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India had not been complied with, the order of discharge was illegal. The suit has been filed for a declaration to the effect that the order of discharge is illegal and that it be declared that he continues in the Police service as a Prosecuting Sub-Inspector. The State contested the suit and pleaded that there could be no automatic confirmation; that the probationary period was extended as he could not pass the departmental examination at Phillaur which was a sine qua non for confirmation and that the order of discharge did not amount to removal and, therefore, the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution did not come into play. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

(3.) Mr. Baldev Singh Jawanda, learned counsel for the plaintiff, has contended in the first instance that the plaintiff was automatically confirmed in the Police Service and, therefore, he should not be dicharged from service without complying with the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Punjab, High Court Dharam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1964 CurLJ 149. After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the view that there is no substance in this contention. Rule 12.8 of the Police Rules prescribed the period of probation; and if Rule 19.26 had not put a further qualifications, namely, that there could be no confirmation unless the departmental examination was cleared, there would have been no difficulty in accepting the contention of the learned counsel because the decision in Dharam Singh,s case would come to his rescue. But in the present case, confirmation can only be if the departmental examination had been cleared. Therefore, in the absence of the plaintiff's getting over that hurdle, he could not merely rely on Rule 12.8 of the Police Rules and contend that after the expiry of the period of probation, he stands automatically confirmed. I, therefore, repel the first contention.