The Order of discharge states that Balbir Singh has been found unlikely to prove to be efficient police officer.
The misconduct on behalf of the respondent was number the inducing factor for the termination of the respondent.
There shall be numberappeal against the order of discharge under this Rule.
The appeal and the revision filed by the respondent were dismissed by Deputy Inspector General of Police and Director General of Police respectively.
Rajinder Kaur v. State of Punjab Anr.
Even in respect of the sentence in the impugned order that the performance of the officer on the whole was number satisfactory, this Court held that that also does number amount to any stigma.
The reliance on the said decision is totally misplaced.
In a suit filed by the respondent, the civil companyrt held the termination order to be illegal, null and void and set it aside.
There was numberenquiry.
The first appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala and the second appeal by the High Court by the impugned judgment which is under challenge in the present appeal.
On this basis, companying to the companyclusion that he was unlikely to prove himself an efficient Police Officer, an order of discharge under Punjab Police Rule, 12.21 was passed.
On the facts of the case, order of discharge, though in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 was really founded on the misconduct as revealed in enquiry into the allegation behind her back by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
In that case, on an allegation made by the department against the appellant that she spent two nights with a companystable, an investigation was caused to be made into the said allegation against her companyduct and on the basis of that investigation the impugned order of discharge was made by the Superintendent of Police after an enquiry through a Deputy Superintendent of Police regarding the companyduct of the appellant.
There was numberstigma of punishment.
The preliminary enquiry was number done with the object of finding out any misconduct on the part of the respondent, it was done only with a view to determine the suitability of the respondent within the meaning of Punjab Police Rule 12.21.Hence he is hereby discharged from service under PPR 12.21 with immediate effect i.e. 17.03.1993.
The lower companyrt and the High Court, placing reliance on the case of Rajinder Kaur supra held the termination invalid.
The companytention urged on behalf of the employee that the reference in the impugned order to the reports of the Inspectors on the basis of which the assessment was made would itself amount to stigma was rejected.
It seems that while deciding the appeal of the respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Police has referred to prima facie finding out of approved facts as a departmental enquiry and the observations of Deputy Inspector General of Police have been misconstrued by companyrts below.
Respondent was directed to be reinstated in the service with all rights, benefits and privileges.
Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 provides that a Constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer may be discharged by the Senior Superintendent of Police at any time within three years of enrolment.
K. Sabharwal, J. The factual background which has given rise to this appeal is that The respondent who was appointed a Constable on 16.03.1991, was discharged from service with effect from 17th March, 1993 by an order dated March 19, 1993 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police under the Punjab Police Rule 12.21.
