CWP No.11962 of 2005 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11962 of 2005 Date of Decision: 23.1.2008 Sucha Singh ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN * * * Present: Mr.H.S.Baath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Dadwal, Addl.AG Punjab for respondents No.1 to3. * * * RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 6.7.1995 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 11.4.2005 (Annexure P-4) whereby his appeal/representation was rejected. The petitioner was recruited as Special Police Officer on daily wages in Government Railway Police, Punjab and was allotted S.P.O.No.1106/GRP vide order dated 12.12.1994 by the Assistant Inspector General of Police, GRP, Punjab, Patiala. It was also mentioned in the recruitment order that he could be discharged at any time without formalities of show cause notice etc. He was discharged from service on 6.7.1995 on the ground that while performing the duty on 24.6.1995, he violated the discipline by giving beating to one Lekh Raj without any cause and he had made cause of defamation to the Police Department. The CWP No.11962 of 2005 -2 - Appointing Authority, on receipt of report from Sh.Kans Raj, DSP Control Room found that the petitioner is unable to become a good Police Officer and therefore, discharged him from GRP department. The petitioner had challenged the order of discharge by filing an appeal to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh on 10.11.2004 which too was rejected on 11.4.2005 vide order Annexure P-4. Notice of motion was issued in this case. Reply has been filed by the Superintendent of Police-cum-Assistant Inspector General, GRP, Punjab, Patiala on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. Counsel for the petitioner has basically argued that while passing the order of discharge, no opportunity of hearing was granted nor any enquiry was held, therefore, order dated 6.7.95 is illegal and unjust. Counsel for the State has submitted that the Special Police Officers are enlisted in terms of the Police Act, 1861 which allows the police Authorities to appoint residents of neighbourhoods where the threat to peace is contemplated and the police force ordinarily deployed is not sufficient. Therefore, the petitioner was engaged on daily wages and can be discharged at any time without any reason. Since his work was not found satisfactory, therefore, he was rightly discharged vide order dated 6.7.1995. He has also relied upon two Division Bench judgments in CWP No.13562 of 2000 Raminder Singh, SPO Vs. State of Punjab decided on 6.1.2003 and Parveen Kumar, Ex. SPO Vs. State of Punjab 2001 (3) RSJ 206. In support of his contention, he urged that the name of the petitioner has been merely removed from the rolls, therefore, it is a case of discharge of a daily wager and therefore, he has no right to continue on the post. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the CWP No.11962 of 2005 -3 - parties and have perused the paper book. There is no dispute that a public servant can not be dismissed or removed from service as a measure of punishment without holding a due and proper enquiry. However, the petitioner cannot claim the status of a Constable as he was never absorbed as such and therefore, the Punjab Police Rules do not apply. The SPO is appointed under Section 17 of the Police Act which allows the police Authorities to appoint the residents of neighbourhoods where the threat to peace is contemplated and the police force ordinarily deployed is considered not sufficient. Therefore, the nature of enlistment of the petitioner was such that he cannot claim to be a member of the service. Since he was a daily wager and has been discharged, no opportunity of hearing is required, especially when the Appointing Authority has passed the order of discharge on the receipt of report from D.S.P. The judgments cited by the State counsel in the cases of Raminder Singh (supra) and Parveen Kumar (supra) squarely covers the facts of this case against the petitioner. Thus, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed without order as to costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge ( Mehtab S.Gill ) 23.1.2008 Judge Meenu