INDERJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a direct Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, is aggrieved by the order of his discharge from the Force. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Sub Inspector in January 30, 1990. He was conveyed adverse remarks for the period from April 1, 1991 to December, 3, 1991, the year 1992-93 and for the period from April 1, 1993 to September 30, 1993. His representations in respect of the adverse remarks were rejected with the exception that one of the remarks in the report for the year 1992-93 was ordered to be expunged. The petitioner had been appointed on probation. Vide order dated November 3, 1993, the period of probation was extended. Ultimately, on October 13, 1994, the petitioner was ordered to be discharged under rule 12.8 of the Punjab Police Rules, Volume II. He filed a review petition which was rejected by the Director General of Police vide order dated January 24, 1995. He still persisted and submitted a review petition to the Government. That was rejected vide order dated May 26, 1997. Hence this petition.

(3.) The solitary contention raised by Mr. P.S. Patwalia, counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 12.8 prescribes the maximum period of probation. Since the petitioner had completed that before the passing of the impugned order, he shall be deemed to have been confirmed and that his discharge from service cannot be sustained. Counsel has further submitted that even the extended period of probation had expired on August 31, 1994 and, thus, he shall be deemed to have been confirmed w.e.f. September 1, 1994. Is it so