LPA No.1367 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1367 of 2010 Date of decision 20 .1.2011 Bhupinder Singh ... Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present: Mr. Jatin Salwan ,Advocate for the appellant Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. AG Punjab. 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The short issue raised in the instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is whether a Constable could be discharged from service without holding any departmental enquiry before completion of probationary period of three years as per the provisions of Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for brevity 'the Rules'). It has remained undisputed that the appellant had joined service as Constable with the Punjab Police on 27.2.1980 and the order of discharge was passed on 1.2.1983 (P.1). A perusal of the order of discharge (P.1) reads as under: “ Constable Bhupinder Singh No.251, ETI is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer. He is therefore discharged from the Police force with effect from 1.2.1983 A.N. under PPR 12.21. Dated 1.2.1983 By SSP BTI.” The question whether an order of discharge simpliciter in terms of Rule 12.21 of the rules could be passed on the ground that such a person is unlikely to prove an efficient officer has been considered by a Full Bench of LPA No.1367 of 2010 2 this Court in the case of Sher Singh v. State of Haryana 1994(2) SLR 100. In para 39 of the judgement it has been held that a Constable can be discharged from service under Rule 12.21 of the Rules at any time within three years of his enrollment inspite of the fact that there is a specific allegation which may amount to mis-conduct against him. Mr. Jatin Salwan, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge has non-suited the appellant by holding that there is a huge delay and laches in challenging the order of discharge. According to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground that the order of discharge was passed in the year 1983 and the writ petition was filed in the year 1992. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission because once on merits it has been found that the appellant did not have any right to hold the post and he has been discharged in accordance with Rule 12.21 of the Rules then the finding of the learned Single Judge would merely be an additional factor to uphold the order of discharge. Even otherwise admission of the writ petition in the year 1992 would not necessarily result into condonation of 9 years unexplained delay. In any case, in the present case the appellant has no right under Rule 12.21 of the Rules to hold the post and he has been rightly discharged from his duty in accordance with the rules. There is thus no merit in the appeal dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (T.P.S.Mann ) 20.1.2011 Judge okg