RAJBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was recruited as a constable on October 2, 1989. Vide order dated March 7, 1992, he was discharged from service. It was indicated in the order that the petitioner had absented himself on different occasions. Thus, it was concluded that he was not likely to become a good police officer. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner submitted a representation. It appears that this representation was rejected vide order dated September 11, 1992. A copy of this order was sent to him vide endorsement No. 23109, dated September 15, 1992. Vide letter dated March 8, 1994, the petitioner was informed that his representation had already been rejected vide office order dated September 11, 1992. A copy of this letter is on record as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition. The petitioner submitted another representation to the Director General of Police. Accordingly, vide letter dated 31. 10. 1994, the petitioner was informed that the Deputy Inspector General had already rejected his representation vide order dated September 11, 1992 and January 12, 1993. In spite of that it was said that "revision-cum-petition (sic.) will be considered by this office on merits. Matriculation Certificate is not attached with his character roll". In response to this communication the petitioner forwarded his matriculation certificate vide letter dated August 24, 1995. Therefore, vide letter dated November 5, 1997, the petitioner was informed that his revision petition has been considered and filed as "no revision petition lies against the order of discharge under PPR 12. 21. " Hence this petition.

(2.) THE petitioner prays that the orders dated March 7, 1992 vide which he was discharged from service and the order dated March 8, 1994 and November 5, 1997 vide which his representation had been rejected by the Deputy Inspector General and the Director General of Police be quashed.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner was discharged vide order dated March 7, 1992. This order had been passed under the provisions of Rule 12. 21, Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Volume 2. Rule 12. 21 inter alia provides that a constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer may be discharged by the Superintendent at any time within three years of enrolment. It has been further provided that