In our opinion, this authority can be of numberassistance to the respondent in view of the companyclusion drawn by this Court that the order had been passed on account of the union activities of the employee and his participation in the call for expressing the protest.
These allegations were also referred to in the companynter affidavit, which was filed on behalf of the State before the High Court.
The other test to determine whether, in substance, the order of discharge is punitive in nature is to ascertain the nature of enquiry i.e. whether the termination is preceded by a full scale formal enquiry into allegations involving misconduct on the part of the respondent, which culminated in the finding of guilt, and the purpose of the enquiry i.e. whether the purpose of the enquiry is to find out any misconduct on the part of the employee or it is aimed at finding out as to the respondent being unlikely to prove as an efficient police officer.
The appellants then preferred a Second Appeal in the High Court, which was also dismissed on the finding that the respondent was thrown out of job on the ground of absence from duty.
The other case relied upon by the learned companynsel for the respondent is State of Uttar Pradesh and another vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla 1991 1 SCC 691.
On thorough examination of the written statement filed by the State of Haryana and the facts of the case this Court came to a finding that the order of discharge was passed by way of punishment on account of his union activities, specially those participating in the call for expressing the protest of the Association for improvement in service companyditions by abstaining from taking meals in the mess on 15.8.2002, and that it was number a simple order of discharge.
Rajinder Kaur vs. Stat of Punjab and another 1986 4 SCC 141, which is a decision by a Bench of two learned Judges.
16.3.1990 under Punjab Police Rules 12.21 as he is number likely to become an efficient police officer.
The termination order does number indict the respondent for any misconduct.
Consequently the order of discharge dated 16.3.1990 was wholly illegal and companytrary to law.
22.2.1990 without making any application for grant of leave or seeking permission for his absence.
He was sent for training at Police Recruit Training College Jahan Khelan.
The High Court accepted the plea of the employee and quashed the termination order.
The termination order was challenged by the appellant on the ground that the same was punitive in nature, which was also demonstrated from the fact that shortly before the order of termination a suspension order had been passed wherein a specific charge of misconduct against him was mentioned.
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed.
The main companytention on behalf of the appellant was that an inquiry was made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police as to the character of the appellant into the allegation that she stayed at Mahalpur for one or two nights with one companystable Jaswant Singh and evidence was recorded therein without giving the appellant any opportunity of hearing or to cross examine the witnesses and the impugned order was made after companypletion of the investigation on the ground of her misconduct which cast a stigma on her service career.
The termination order was challenged on the ground that certain allegations of misconduct had been made against him regarding which an ex parte inquiry was held wherein he was number given any opportunity of hearing.
The Court specifically held that on the facts and circumstances of the case it companyld number be said that the order of discharge was an order simpliciter of removal from service of a probationer in accordance with the terms and companyditions of the service, as it tantamount to dismissal from service by reason of misconduct.
He absented from duty w.e.f.
In this case the appellant was appointed as a lady companystable on 7.5.1979 and after companypletion of training she was posted in the police lines in March, 1980.
Issue order in O.R. and all companycerned to numberice and necessary action.
In this case the employee Kaushal Kishore Shukla was appointed on ad hoc basis for fixed period on 18.2.1977 as Assistant Auditor, which was extended on several occasions and the last extension was granted on 21.1.1980 which was to expire on 28.2.1981.
The appeal filed by the State was allowed by this Court and the order of the High Court was set aside with the following observations The respondent being a temporary government servant had numberright to hold the post, and the companypetent authority terminated his services by an innocuous order of termination without casting any stigma on him.
The respondent Sukhwinder Singh filed a civil suit in the Court of Sub Judge, Amritsar, seeking a declaration that the order dated 16.3.1990, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, discharging him from service, was illegal and inoperative in law as it was passed by way of punishment, without holding any enquiry and without giving him any opportunity of hearing.
The appellants herein companytested the suit on various grounds and the main plea taken therein was that the respondent had to put in less than three years of service and was a probationer on the date of passing of the order dated 16.3.1990 and, therefore, he was rightly discharged under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules hereinafter referred to as the Rules by the Senior Superintendent of Police.
It was submitted that the order of termination of service was founded on the allegations of misconduct and the ex parte inquiry report.
732 is unlikely to prove an efficient police officer.
The Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, passed the following order on 16.3.1990 Constable Sukhwinder Singh No.
644/ASR of this District is discharged from service w.e.f.
The Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, discharged the appellant by order dated 9.9.1980 under Rule 12.21 of the Rules.
The learned companynsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on Smt.
She is, therefore, hereby discharged from the Police Force under Punjab Police Rules 12.21 with effect from today September 9, 1980 .
His services were terminated on 23.9.1980.
The order of discharge read as under Lady Constable Rajinder Kaur No.
The respondent Sukhwinder Singh joined on 4.8.1989 as a police companystable and was allotted number 644 in District Amritsar in the State of Punjab.
P. Mathur, J. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred by the State of Punjab and others challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2001 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by which the Second Appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed and the decree passed by the companyrts below decreeing the respondents suit was affirmed.
