Punjab Police Rules| SP Is Authorised To Terminate Any Probationary Employee Failing To Meet Required Standards: SC
The Supreme Court noted that the probationary constable (Respondent) was not terminated due to misconduct but simply dismissed. The Court observed that the Respondent showed no interest in training and lacked a sense of responsibility. Therefore, he was discharged by the Superintendent of Police (SP) as he failed to prove himself as an efficient police officer.
The Court noted that the SP, under Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (PPR), has the authority to terminate any probationary employee who does not meet the required service standards. The Court observed that the Trial Court made an error in interpreting Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (PPR).
The Court allowed a Civil Appeal filed by the State against the judgment of the High Court, which had upheld the decision of the Trial Court. The Trial Court had awarded a decree to a constable of the Punjab Police who was terminated from employment.
“In our considered view, all the three Courts misconstrued Rule 12.21 of PPR and decreed the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff. Looking to the contents of the order of discharge, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no foundation of misconduct alleged in the order and it is an order of simpliciter discharge of a probationer constable”, the Bench comprising Justice J.K Maheshwari and Justice K.V Viswanathan noted.
The Bench observed, “The discharge order was passed on the recommendation of the concerned supervisory authority of the Training Centre due to prolonged absence from training without any intimation. The authority found that the probationer constable has no interest in training, and no sense of responsibility, hence, he cannot prove himself a good, efficient police officer”.
Advocate Karan Sharma appeared for the Appellant, and Advocate Yadav Narender Singh appeared for the Respondent.
The Respondent/Plaintiff was appointed as a constable with the Punjab Police on probation. While training at the ‘Police Recruits Training Centre’, he and other constables were sent to Amritsar for special duty as security guards. After the constables were relieved, the Respondent remained absent without any intimation, and the Superintendent of Police (SP) of the Training Centre became aware of this conduct. The Respondent was unable to prove himself as a good and efficient police officer. Therefore, the SP recommended their discharge from service under Rule 12.21 of the PPR. The SP requested that the Respondent’s name be struck off the rolls of the Training Centre with immediate effect, treating the absence period as leave without pay. The Senior Superintendent of Police, through an order, discharged the Respondent, which the Respondent challenged.
The Trial Court partly decreed the suit on the grounds of violating the principles of natural justice as the Respondent was not granted an opportunity for a hearing. The Appellants challenged the decision of the Court, contending that the Respondent was a probationary constable and, therefore, the power under Rule 12.21 of PPR was rightly exercised to discharge him from duty.
The State filed two appeals challenging the order and seeking a mandatory injunction. The Respondent also appealed, contending that since the discharge order was not found legally sustainable, he should be allowed to join their duties, granting all consequential benefits. The First Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellants, while the Appeal filed by the Respondent was allowed. However, the Court granted liberty to the Appellants to proceed against the Respondent under Rule 16.24 of PPR. The High Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the Appellant filed a Civil Appeal.
The Court referred to the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Sukhwinder Singh [(2005) 5 SCC 569]. The Court noted that during probation, the constables are closely monitored and supervised without any guarantee of job security.
The Court emphasized that under Rule 12.21 of PPR, the SP is authorized to terminate constables’ services if they fail to meet the required standards. The constables must demonstrate efficiency and possess discipline, self-reliance, punctuality, sobriety, courtesy, straightforwardness, and technical knowledge. The Court further stated that the SP could discharge probationers during the probation period and placed reliance on the case of Superintendent of Police Vs. Dwarka Das [(1979) 3 SCC 789].
The Court held that Rule 12.21 of PPR was misconstrued by all three Courts, resulting in the Respondent’s suit being decreed.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal, and set aside the decree passed by the High Court.
Cause Title: The State Of Punjab And Others v Jaswant Singh (2023 INSC 798)
