Case: Superintendent Of Police, Ludhiana &amp; Anr Vs. Dwarka Das Etc

The High Court first decided the writ petition of constable Dwarka Das, which is the subject matter of appeal No.1286 of 1969, and disposed of the other two writ petitions, which are the subject matter of appeals Nos. 1287 and 2511 of 1969, on the bas is of that judgment. These three appeals therefore Raise common questions of law and have been heard together at the request of learned counsel for the parties and will be disposed of by a common judgmentThe writ petitioners in all the three cases were recruited as constables in the police-force of the Punjab State. It is not in dispute before us that (i) they were police-officers of the State, (ii) they were enrolled as police-officers, (iii) they had put in more than three years service after their recruitment and enrolment as police officers, and (iv) they were discharged under the provisions of rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules and not by way of punishment under the provisions of Chapter XVI of the Rules. No attempt has been made to distinguish one case from the others on facts. On the other hand learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the facts of the three cases are quite similar and they raise the common question of law whether the orders of discharge were valid. The respondents challenged the validity of those orders by writ petitions which were allowed by the impugned judgments of the High Court and the three appeals are before us for that reason.

Reasoning: So if rules 12.2(3) and 12.21 are read together, it will appear that the maximum period of probation in the case of 3 police-officer of the rank of constable is three, years, for the Superintendent OF Police concerned has the power to discharge him within that period. It follows that the power of discharge cannot be exercised under rule 12.21 after the expiry of the period of three years. If therefore it is proposed to deal with an inefficient police-officer after the expiry of that period, it is necessary to do so in accordance with the rules of Chapter XVI of the Rules which makes provision for the imposition of various punishments including dismissal from the police-force. It is not permissible to ignore those rules and make a simple order of discharge under rule 12.21 after the expiry of the period of three years for that will attract article 311 of the Constitution. The Superintendent of Police concerned could not have ignored that requirement of the law and terminated the services of the three respondents after the expiry of the period of three years from their enrolment in the police-force of the StateThe High Court therefore rightly set aside the orders of termination of the services of the three respondents and to that extent the impugned judgments are correct. But we are constrained to say that it was not justified in holding that "a constable who has obtained a certificate under rule 12.22 cannot be dealt with under rule 12.21", and that "if he is to be removed from service, procedure prescribed in Chapter XVI has to be followed." The reason is that, as has been shown, the certificate prescribed under rule 12.22 is meant to serve the purpose o f section 8 of the Act by vesting a police-officer with the powers, functions and privileges of a police-officer, and has to be issued on his appointment as such. The certificate is thus a letter of authority, and enables the police-officer concerned to enter upon his duties as a police-officer. It has to be granted almost from the inception, when a person is appointed and enrolled as police-officer, and it is not correct to say that the mere issue of the certificate puts its holder beyond the reach of rule 12.21 even if it is found that he is unlikely to prove an efficient police-officer and has not completed the period of three years after his enrolment.