The misconduct on behalf of the respondent was number the inducing factor for the termination of the respondent.
There shall be numberappeal against an order of discharge under the rule It is also the case of the Department that the respondent being an unauthorised absentee, the Superintendent of Police found him unlikely to prove an efficient police officer as per high standard of discipline as being expected from police personnel.
The Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab Haryana has held in the case of Sher Singh vs.State of Haryana, 1994 2 S.L.R. Page 100 that a companystable 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.
In view of the above decision, the companystable can be discharged from service even if there is specific allegation which may 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 number only on the basis of the periodic reports companytemplated under Rule 19.5 but also on the basis of any other relevant material.
Rule 12.21 reads as under 12.21.
The respondent was appointed on 02.12.1989 as a Constable.
The termination was number founded on the misconduct but the misbehaviour with a lady companystable and companysumption of liquor in office were companysidered to determine the suitability of the respondent for the job, in the light of the standard of discipline expected from police personnel.
The preliminary enquiry was number done with the object of finding out 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 Rules 12.21.
Arising out of SLP C No.12359 of 2006 Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted.
He was discharged from service on 18.10.1992 under Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules.
Discharge of inefficient A companystable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer may be discharged by the Superintendent of police at any time within three years of enrolment.
We have perused the orders passed by the companyrts below and the relevant rules.
Heard learned companynsel for the appellants and the respondent.
