IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13311 of 2011 Jasbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in IRB Haryana on 5.8.2008 and was deputed for training at 3rd Battalion IRB Bhondsi, Gurgaon. Thereafter he was posted at 3rd Battalion IRB, Haryana. He claims to have performed his duty honestly and sincerely. On 13.2.2010, the petitioner had gone on leave to his village as his mother was not well. As per the petitioner, as he was ready to leave for joining the duties, he was falsely implicated in an FIR which the allegations under Sections 323/342/376 IPC, which was lodged on 15.2.2010. The petitioner was arrested. The complaint was made to the senior officers. The petitioner has averred that this was a false implication and proved to be so. On the basis of FSL report, the petitioner was granted bail on 20.4.2010 and Investigating Officer submitted an application before the Illaqa Magistrate that the petitioner is innocent and he be discharged. When the petitioner joined duty, he was sent to 2nd Battalion IRB, where he was also allotted a Constabulary number. On 11.6.2010, the petitioner was served with an order of discharge under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules on the ground that he was unlikely to prove an efficient police officer. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge this order. Counsel contends that except for the allegations made in the FIR, which have been found to be false and where the process to declare him innocent and discharge is on, there is nothing which can be held against the petitioner. The petitioner has not been discharged on account of the fact that he is involved in criminal case as can be seen from the order. Rule 12.21 of the Rules gives ample power to the respondents to discharge an employee within a period of two years if it is found that person is unlikely to be an efficient police officer. It is a non-stigmatic order of discharge, which, the respondents could pass as per the terms and conditions of the service and under the rules. The order has not been put to challenge except on the ground that it is only on account of petitioner's involvement in a criminal case that he has been discharged. Even if that be so, the respondents cannot be faulted for forming this view about the likelihood of the petitioner becoming an efficient officer on account of his involvement. I do not see any reason which would call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. July 27, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE