Allowed

State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ram Niwas

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jan 2010LPA/449/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the discharge of a constable from service under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules without a prior inquiry. The High Court relied on Apex Court precedents holding that such discharge does not mandate a departmental enquiry. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

LPA allowed; judgment in CWP No.13636 of 1993 dated 11.8.1998 set aside.

State of Haryana and Ors. Vs Ram Niwas — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

LPA No.449 of 1998

¶2

-1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

LPA No.449 of 1998 Date of decision:22.01.2010

¶5

The State of Haryana and others

¶6

............Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ex. Const. Ram Niwas No.300/Jind.

¶9

..........Respondent

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH

¶11

-.-

¶12

Present: Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

¶13

Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

ALOK SINGH, J.

¶15

In the present appeal, order under challenge is dated 11.8.1998 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.13636 of 1993. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that discharge of the writ petitioner from the service on the ground of misconduct during the probation is illegal.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar reported in 2007(7) SLR 162 and argued that discharge of the probationer under Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 does not require any chargesheet or opportunity of being heard. Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgement

¶17

LPA No.449 of 1998

¶18

-2

¶19

(supra) in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 has observed as under:-

¶20

"8. The Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held in the case of Sher Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1994(2) SLR Page 100 that a constable can be discharged from service under Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 at any time within three years of his enrolment in spite of the fact that there is a specific allegation which may even amount to misconduct against him. It was further held by the Full Bench that a Superintendent of Police can form his opinion on police officer not only on the basis of the periodic reports contemplated under Rule 19.5 but also on the basis of any other relevant material. In view of the above decision, the constable can be discharged from service even if there is specific allegation which may amount to misconduct against him.

¶21

The High Court, in our opinion, has also failed to notice that departmental enquiry, is not required before passing an order under Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules to discharge a constable on ground of his unauthorised absence and being habitual absentee who is not suitable to become a police officer."

¶22

We have carefully perused the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. In the present matter, writ petitioner/respondent was

¶23

LPA No.449 of 1998 -3

¶24

discharged from the services on the ground that he was a habitual and wilful absentee from duty without leave and he was unlikely to be proved an efficient police officer as envisaged under Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules.

¶25

In view of the fact that no inquiry or chargesheet is required for the discharge under Rules 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules, view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.

¶26

The letters patent appeal is allowed and the judgment

¶27

dated 11.8.1998 passed in CWP No.13636 of 1993 is set aside.

¶28

(ALOK SINGH) JUDGE

¶29

22.01.2010

¶30

(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE

¶31

ashish

State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ram Niwas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ram Niwas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Angrejo Devi and Others Vs Narender Singh and Others

D H B v N Ltd. and Anr. Vs Amarjit Singh Chadha

Harvinder Singh Vs Ishar Singh

Samunder Singh and Anr. Vs Dalbir Singh

Sunita Bajaj Vs State Bank of India and Anr.

Sheela & Ors. Vs Kasturi Lal