1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9164 of 1991. Date of Decision: 2.2.2010 *** Ashok Kumar dead through LR Smt. Usha Rani .. Petitioner VS. The State of Haryana & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Johan Kumar. Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Chahal, Addl. A.G. Haryana. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner Ashok Kumar (since deceased and represented by his legal representative Smt. Usha Rani) joined the General Railway Police as a Constable on 11.1.1989. On 8.3.1991 i.e. within three years of his appointment, the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Haryana, Ambala Cantonment passed the following order, discharging him from the service:- “Constable Ashok Kumar No. 1031/CRP is found unlikely to be become an efficient police officer. He is therefore, discharged from service with immediate effect under rule PPR 12.21.” It emerges from the record and not disputed by the parties that the absence of the petitioner from 25.2.1991 to 8.3.1991 had resulted into passing of the aforesaid order (Annexure P-1). After having failed to get any relief from the appropriate authorities, the petitioner preferred the instant petition and laid challenge to the impugned order (Annexure P-1) on the ground that his absence for the said period was not intentional but on account of his illness, for which he remained under medical supervision; since the impugned order has been 2 passed on the basis of misconduct of remaining unauthorizedly absent from duties from 25.2.1991 to 8.3.1991, therefore, an enquiry was required to be conducted before passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied upon the case of Om Parkash Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., CWP No. 10165 of 1988, decided on April 18,1991(Annexure P-5). Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules reads as under:- “Rule 12.21:- A Constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer may be discharged by the Superintendent at any time within three years of enrolment. There shall be no appeal against an order of discharge under this rule.” I have gone through the said judgment (Annexure P-5). Om Parkash's case (supra) was decided by this Court while following the ratio of law laid down in the case of Smt. Rajinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1986 SC 1790. However, the law laid in the case of Smt. Rajinder Kaur (supra) is no more a good law and the same has been over-ruled by a Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Sukhwinder Singh AIR 2005 SC 2960. Their Lordships in Sukhwinder Singh's case (supra) concluded that the period of probation gives time and opportunity to the employer to watch the work ability, efficiency, sincerity and competence of the servant and if he found not suitable for the post, the master reserves a right to dispense with his service without anything more during or at the end of the prescribed period, which is styled as a period of probation. The Hon'ble Apex Court also endorsed the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sher Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1994 (1) Punjab Law Reporter 456, wherein over-ruling the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 1992(1) SLR 582, it has been held as follows: “32. ... There appears to be nothing in the Rule which may debar the Superintendent of Police from 3 discharging a constable, who is not only absent from duty, but is even found whistling or misbehaving with the public. Nor can it be said that such an act is minor or trivial. The rule does not enjoin upon the authority to wait from a constable to commit 'consistent lapses or misbehaviour'. A single act of indiscipline can lead the competent authority to conclude that the constable is unlikely to prove an efficient police officer and to discharge him from service....” In the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar 2007(2) RSJ 376 while relying upon the cases of Sukhwinder Singh and Sher Singh (supra), it has been held that a departmental enquiry is not required before passing an order under Rule 12.21 to discharge a Constable on account of unauthorized absence and being habitual absentee who is not suitable to become a police officer. In view of the discussion above, there is no merit in the instant writ petition and the same stands d ismissed with no costs. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE February 2,2010 Jiten