In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 3394 of 2007 Date of Decision: 01.10.2010 Karan Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI PRESENT: None for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by an Ex. Constable, who was working with the Haryana Police, raises a short question of law whether discharge simplicitor under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’) without holding of a regular departmental inquiry, on the ground that the incumbent is unlikely to prove efficient police officer is sustainable. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 13.10.2005 (P-1), passed by the Superintendent of Police, Faridabad-respondent No. 3 discharging him from service as a Constable by exercising jurisdiction under C.W.P. No. 3394 of 2007 Rule 12.21 of the Rules. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner was enrolled as Constable in the Haryana Police on 20.11.2003. On 11.9.2005, he was deployed for guard duty at Sentry Post No. 1, Kothi No. 135, Golf Link, New Delhi, from 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. At about 12.20 p.m. one round was fired from the Self Loading Riffle (SLR) of the petitioner, which caused minor injury on his left hand finger. A Daily Diary Report in that regard was recorded (P-5). The petitioner was thereafter sent to the Headquarters at Police Lines, Hisar. On 26.9.2005, he was placed under suspension. On 13.10.2005, the Superintendent of Police, Faridabad, passed an order of discharge under Rule 12.21 of the Rules with immediate effect opining that the petitioner is not likely to prove an efficient police officer (P-1). Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon, being not maintainable, vide order dated 20.3.2006 (P-2). The petitioner further filed a revision which was also dismissed vide order dated 6.6.2006 (P-3). Hence the instant petition. 3. No one has put in appearance in support of the petition. 4. Having heard learned State counsel we are of the considered view that the matter is no longer res integra. It is settled proposition of law that a constable could have been discharged under Rule 12.21 of the Rules within three years of his enrolment. On the ground that the petitioner is not likely to become an efficient police officer, the power of discharge has been exercised. There is a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sher Singh v. State of Haryana, 1994(2) SLR 100, holding that power of discharge exercised under Rule 12.21 cannot be questioned unless the same has been exercised with mala fide intention. The view of the Full Bench go to the extent that a Constable can be discharged from service under Rule 12.21 at any 2 C.W.P. No. 3394 of 2007 time within three years of his enrolment despite the fact that there is a specific allegation which may even amount to misconduct against him. The provisions of Rule 16.24 of the Rules and Article 311 would be attracted only in cases when the punishing authority decides to punish the Constable, which is not the case in the instant case. The impugned order dated 13.10.2005 (P-1) is not a stigmatic order disclosing any lapse on the part of the petitioner. The view of the Full Bench squarely applies to the instant case and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) October 1, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3