In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 19137 of 2007 Date of Decision: 01.10.2010 Ex. Constable Kuldeep Singh …Petitioner Versus The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI PRESENT: Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 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 Chandigarh 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. C.W.P. No. 19137 of 2007 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 9.9.2005 (P-2), passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police-respondent No. 3 discharging him from service as a Recruit Constable by exercising jurisdiction under Rule 12.21 of the Rules. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner was enrolled as Constable in the Chandigarh Police on 15.3.2005 after rendering 17 years of service as Hawaldar in 18 Sikh Regiment. While he was undergoing training, an FIR No. 21, dated 9.3.2005 was registered against him under Sections 406, 498-A IPC by his wife. On 12.4.2005, he was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court with a direction to appear before the Investigating Officer on 15.4.2005 and join the investigation. On 14.4.2005, he filed an application seeking one day leave for 15.4.2005 enabling him to join the investigation. On 9.9.2005, the Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T. Chandigarh 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- 2). The petitioner assailed the aforementioned order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, by filing OA No. 900/PB/205, which was dismissed on 6.3.2007 (P-3). Hence the instant petition. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties 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 2 C.W.P. No. 19137 of 2007 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 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 position in the instant case. The impugned order dated 9.9.2005 (P-2) 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. 4. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) October 1, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3