RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined in the police department of Haryana Government as a Constable in November 1989 and was deputed for training to Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban (Karnal). He proceeded on leave for 2 days but after expiry of leave, he did not join his duties till 7.11.1990. Again he proceeded on leave on 25.2.1991 and remained absent till 4.3.1991. On 5.3.1991, he was served with an order of discharge under rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules on the ground that he is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer. Challenging the order of discharge, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(2.) The order of discharge dated 5.3.1991 is simiplicitor. It does not attach any stigma. There is no dispute that the Commandant, 5th Bn. HAP, Madhuban is competent to pass an order under rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules. There cannot be any dispute that taking overall conduct and performance of the petitioner, the authorities have to pass an order. There is nothing to show that the authority competent has not applied his mind while passing the order of discharge. There is nothing on the record to show that the services of the petitioner were discharged on any allegation of misconduct or that it is the result of authoritis', finding it to be a punishment. A Full Bench of this Court has held in Jai Singh, ex-Constable v. State of Haryana and others, 1977 2 SLR 371, that the rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules is not violative of Article 311 of the Constitution. On a consideration of the material on record, I do not find any ground for interference with the order of discharge. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.