The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a probationary police officer. Discharging the petitioner for concealing previous service links with extremists was held to be within jurisdiction despite the probationary status.
Writ petition dismisseddeclaring the discharge order legal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.4548 of 1993 Date of Decision: November 17, 2009
Sukhraj Singh
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Another
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - None for the petitioner.
Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 12.2.1993 (Annexure P-3).
Perusal of Order, Annexure P-3, shows that the petitioner was discharged from service under Rule 12.8 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short, `Rules’) w.e.f. 12.2.1993 (afternoon) as he was not found suitable for service.
CWP No.4548 of 1993 [2]
Perusal of Rule 12.8 of the Rules shows that persons who are directly appointed are required to be considered on probation for three years and are liable to be discharged at any time during or on the expiry of the period of probation if they fail to pass the prescribed examination or are guilty of grave misconduct or are deemed, for sufficient reason, to be unsuitable for service in the police.
Under the circumstances, the jurisdiction of the respondents to pass order, Annexure P-3, cannot be questioned in so much as it remains the admitted fact that the petitioner, at the point in time when impugned order was passed, was on probation as he had not completed three years.
Learned counsel for the respondentState contends that material facts have been concealed from the Court. Prior to employment of the petitioner on 12.11.1989, the petitioner was appointed as Constable in District Hoshiarpur on 8.4.1985. The petitioner was discharged from service w.e.f. 19.5.1986 on account of his having links with the extremists. The petitioner concealed this material fact from the authorities and again got enrolled himself in District Amritsar on 12.11.1989. In the year 1991, he was
CWP No.4548 of 1993 [3]
appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector in District Ludhiana by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana. In the application form, in Column No.12, the petitioner was required to disclose his previous appointment. The same was not done and therefore, on concealment of his antecedents, he got employed.
I have considered the issue.
The facts emanating from the
pleadings show that the petitioner earlier sought employment with the respondents as Constable on 8.4.1985. The petitioner was found having links with extremists and therefore, was discharged from service on 19.5.1986.
The petitioner concealed this
material and relevant fact, and enrolled for employment in another district viz. Amritsar and got appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector.
The fact that the petitioner was
earlier employed and had been discharged from service on account of his links with extremists, has been concealed even from this Court.
I have also considered the fact
that the petitioner was still on probation and therefore, could be discharged under Rule 12.8 of the Rules.
CWP No.4548 of 1993 [4]
circumstances of the case, no illegality can be traced in the action of the respondents in discharging the petitioner from service. The petitioner concealed material and relevant facts from the respondents. This assumes particular importance because Police is a disciplined force. The authority that has discharged the petitioner has competent jurisdiction.
No ground for judicial review, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, is made out in extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
The petition is dismissed.
November 17, 2009 JUDGE
avin
2 issues framed by the court
Whether discharge of a probationary police officer for concealing antecedents of previous discharge due to extremism is within administrative jurisdiction.
Whether concealment of material facts regarding prior discharge vitiates the high court authority to dismiss a writ petition challenging service termination.
Sukhraj Singh
State of Punjab
AJAI LAMBA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
