A probationary Deputy Superintendent of Police's services were terminated on expiry of extended probation as unfit for appointment under Rule 8(b) of the Punjab Police Service Rules. The Supreme Court held he was not confirmed on completion of three years and that such termination carried no stigma, so Rule 9 of the Punishment Rules was not attracted.
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.
A
B
c
HAR! Sll'IGH MANN
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
August 20, !974
[A. N. R•.Y, CJ., A-"D K. K. MATHEW, J.J
PoA;aB Civil Servic<s (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, Rules 8{b) and ':i--Termination oj servic~ of probationr on ground of unfitness for otU 1q Slate Surice--Exprn:sion "unfit to be appointed'', if carrits .;,,,,,,,..
Tbe appellant was appointed on 20 May, 1965, on two ye=' probation, On 1 Jnly, 1967 there was an order cncnding the period of probation by one year. On J.faY 20, 1968, there wa:s an order ter~inatinp,,, the services ·of t.Re J"ritioncr. On )uly 20, 1968 there was an order revoking the order of . termination and ·extending the period of probation for six months from 20th May, 1968. The orde. of terminaloin was on Jan. 30, 1969. This order rccitai that, having considere..J him nnfit for appointment to the State Police Savio: the servi=i of the apP<;llant are dispensed with m ·tho expiry of hi• cxlen<!ed period of probation. Two rontentions were raised bY. the •PJ"llant in the lfigh Cowt. Finl, the order of termination was passed on Jan. 30, 1%9, when the petitioner, by reason of expiry Qf 3 year.; stood confirmed on 19/20 November, 1968 and Second, the order of termination was one of pnnisfzment and the appellant should have bee_n ~ven an opportunity to show caa<;e against the order of termination under Rule 9 of the Punjab Ci1il Service Cl'nni5hment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. These contentions were rejected by the Hi._m Court Hence the appeal to this Court by Sfu:ial Lern: .
D
IJi;missing the appeal, ..
HELD : Tho object of extending the period of probation is to find out r.·hethcr the appellant was a fit per.;on. The appellant could not be ronfirmed, till 1"' reriod of probation expirod.. It cannot, therefore, be held that the appdbnt stood confirmed on 19/20 November, 1968 before the period of pro- batio-n expired in January, 1969.[776A-B] '
E
'
(1.) Termination on account of unsatisfactory record will attract rule 9 of t!l:: Punishment Rules.. Fitness W2S a matter to be considered at the time of ooafirmation. The order terminating the services is unfitness for appoint· ment and not on the ground of any turpiUJde to attract Ruic 9 of the Punishment Rules, 1952. To hold that the words "unfit to be appointed" mentioned in th: oder of termination.,. are a sti__mla, '\i:>uld deprive the authorities to · jud,l!C fitness for work or suitability to a PoSt at the time of confirmation. TcnnWation of services on account of inadequacy for the job or for any ten1p:amental or other defect not im:olving moral turpitude is not a stigma. "'\'hidJ. can ~ called discharge by punishment. Fitness for the job is one of the most important reasons for confirmation. The facts and circum.:tances do oot show that there was any stigrn?~ **attached to the order of termination and therefore. Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment & Aµp<:al)** Rule>_ 1952 is not attracted in the pcesent ca,;e. (776G-777B]
F
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISD!CTIOS : Civil Appeal No. 1955 of 197-0.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order dl!ted the 5th November, 1969 of the Punjab & Haryana Higo Conrt in Civil Writ No. 309 of 1969. -
H
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala and V. l. Francis, for the appellant.
H. S. MANN v. PUNJAB (Ray, C.J.)
775
A
V. C. Mahajan ard 0. P. Shanna, for the respondents.
The Judgment ci the Court was delivered by
RAY, CJ. This is 2!l appeal by special leave from the jud.;iment dated 5 November, 1969 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The only person is whether the order of termination of the service B· of the appellant who was a ,:>robationer is in viohtion of Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1952 ..
The appellant was selected by the Public Service . Commi.sion as a direct recruit on 20 May, 1965. He was appointed on 26 May, 1965. He joined as a probationer. The period of probation was two years. ·
c
D
E
Rule 8(b) of the Punjab Police Service Rules 1959 states that the services of a member recruited by direct app<iintment may be dispensed with by the Government on his failing to pass the final examination at the end of his period of training, or on his being reported on during or at the end of his period of probation, 115 unfit - for appointment.
The order terminating· the services of the appellant was as follows:-
"The President of India is pleased to dispense with the service of Shri Hari Singh Mann, Probationery Deputy Superintendent of Police, Amritsar on the expiry of his extended period of probation with .effect from 2-2-1969 (A.N.) under rule 8(b) of the Punjab Police Service Rules 1959; having considered him unfit for appointment to the State Police Service. The period from 20-5-68 to 2-8-68 which has been tre-ated as leave of the kind due has been excluded from the period of trial (Probation)."
The two contentions which have been advanced before the High Court were repeated here. . First, the order of termination was passed F on 30 January, 1969 when the petitioner by reason of expiry of three years stood confirmed on 19/20 November, 1968. Second the order of termination was one of punishment and the appellant should, therefore, under Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and cAppeal) Rules have been given opportunity to show cause again•t · the order of termination.
G
G Under the aforesaid (Police Service) Rule 8(b) provi.<o, the· Government could ·extend the period of probation by not· more than one year. The appellant was appoinied on 20 May, 1965 ,;n two years probation. On. I July, 1967, there was "an order extending the period of probation by one year. On 20 May, 1968, there was an order terminating the services of the petitioner. On 20 July. 1968 !here was an order revoking the <irder of termination H and extending the period of probation for six months from 20 May, 1968. The order of termination v.-as on 30 January, 1969. The appe!Iant was on leave from 20 May, 1968 to 2 August, 1968. The
.. 776
D
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
. [J 975] 1 S.C.F..
Government excluded the p~riod of · lea''<' from the period probation.
of
The object of extending the period of probation is to find out whether the appellant was a fit person. The appellant could not be confirmed till the period of pr9bation to find out . the fitness of the 3PJ'C'.llant expired. It cannot therefore be held that the appellant stood conlirmed on 19/20 November, 1968 before the period of probation expired in January, 1969.
A
.,
The appellant relied on Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. Rule 9 is as follows :-
"Where it is proposed to terminate the employment of a probationer, whether during or at the end of the period of probation, for any specific fault or on account of the unsatisfactory record or unfavourable reports implying the unsuitability for the service, the probationer shall be npprised of the grounds of such proposal, and given an opportunity to show cause against it, before orders are passed by the authority competent to terminate the appointment".
"'
If (Punishment) Rule 9 applies the services of the appellant could not be terminated without complying with the prc1Visions thereof.
The appellant contended that the order of termination stated that the appel1'ant was considered unfit for appointment and therefore it amounts to punishment to attract rule 9. The appellant extracted a statement from the affidavit of the Inspector General of Police in answer to the appellant's petition in the High Court that the apoellant's record during the period Of probation was unsatisfactory. Rdiance is placed on rule 9 where it is said that if the termination of the Services of a "probationer be on account of unsatisfactory record be shall be given an opportunity to show cause against it. The respondent relied on rule 11 of the Punjab Police Service Rules where it is sttlted that in matters relating to discipline, penalties and appeals, members of the Service shall be governed by the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. Therefore, it is said by the respondent that Rules 8 and 11 of the Punjab Police Service Rules show that termination of probation which is dealt with in rule 8 is different from matters relating to penalties which are de-alt with in rule 11 of the· Punjab Poliee Service Rules.
Termination on account of unsatisfactory record will attract rule 9 of the Punishment Rules. It is obvious that at the time of confirmation fitness is a matter to be considere<l. The order terwinating the services is unfitness for appointment at the time of confirmation. it is not passed on the ground of any turpitude like misconduct or inefficiency. To hold that the words "unfit to be appointed" are a stigma would . rob the authorities of the power to judge fitness for work or suitability to tbe post at the time · of confirmation.
E
f
G
H
H. S. ~IA1'1' r. PL" !AB (Ray, CJ.) 777
A Termination of services on ac.:ount of inadequacy for the job or for any temperamental or ether defect not involving moral turpitude is not a stigma which can be c:tlk.>d di,charge by punishment. Firncss for the job is cue of the l:l''.1$! important reasons for cor.frmation. The facts and circums;::;nces do no·t show that there is any stigma attached to the order Di termination.
B For these reasons. the app.."31 fails and is dismissed. Parties will pay and bear their own c0sts.
V.M.K.
Appeal dismissed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a probationer whose probation was extended stood confirmed on the original date of completion of three years.
Whether termination of a probationer as 'unfit for appointment' is punitive so as to attract Rule 9 of the Punishment Rules requiring show cause.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Hari Singh Mann
The State of Punjab & Ors.
A. N. Ray
K. K. Mathew
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
