Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Probationary Constable: State of Punjab vs. Jaswant Singh (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: September 5, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 798

Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J. and K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can a probationary police officer be discharged from service for prolonged absence without intimation, or does such action require a formal inquiry? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the scope of Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (PPR). This judgment revolves around the discharge of a probationary constable and whether such discharge was a simple termination or a punitive action requiring a formal inquiry. The bench comprised Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan.

Case Background

Jaswant Singh was appointed as a constable in the Punjab Police on November 12, 1989, and was sent for training. On November 24, 1990, he was temporarily assigned to special duty in Amritsar as a security guard. After this assignment, while other constables returned to the training center, Jaswant Singh remained absent without any notification. This absence led the Superintendent of Police (S.P.) of the Training Centre to report the matter to the Senior Superintendent of Police (S.S.P.) on February 21, 1991, recommending his discharge due to lack of interest in training and responsibility. Consequently, the S.S.P. discharged Jaswant Singh on March 28, 1991, under Rule 12.21 of the PPR, stating he was unlikely to become an efficient police officer.

Jaswant Singh challenged this discharge, claiming it was illegal and violated principles of natural justice. He argued that he had been sick and had attempted to rejoin with medical certificates, but was not allowed to do so. He sought reinstatement with full back pay.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar, partly decreed Jaswant Singh’s suit on January 12, 2000, holding that the discharge order violated the principles of natural justice by not providing a hearing. The court directed the appellants to rectify the procedural irregularity within two months and decide the case after affording a hearing.

The State appealed, arguing that as a probationer, Jaswant Singh could be discharged under Rule 12.21 of the PPR. Simultaneously, Jaswant Singh also appealed, seeking reinstatement and consequential benefits. The first appellate court dismissed the State’s appeal and allowed Jaswant Singh’s appeal on February 14, 2002, granting him all service benefits. The court, however, allowed the State to initiate proceedings against him under Rule 16.24 of the PPR.

The High Court dismissed the State’s second appeals, upholding the first appellate court’s decision. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which states:

“12.21 – A constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer may be discharged by the Superintendent at any time within three years of enrolment. There shall be no appeal against an order of discharge under this Rule.”

This rule allows the Superintendent of Police to discharge a constable within three years of their enrolment if they are deemed unlikely to become an efficient officer. The rule also specifies that there is no appeal against such an order.

Arguments

Appellants’ (State’s) Arguments:

• The State argued that Jaswant Singh was a probationary constable, and his discharge was a simple termination under Rule 12.21 of the PPR.
• They contended that the recommendation for discharge was based on Jaswant Singh’s prolonged absence without intimation, which indicated a lack of interest in training and responsibility.
• The State asserted that the discharge was not punitive or stigmatic and did not require a formal inquiry.
• The State relied on the Supreme Court judgments in State of Punjab and Others vs. Sukhwinder Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 569 and State of Punjab and others vs. Constable Avtar Singh, (2008) 7 SCC 405, to support their claim that a simple discharge of a probationer is permissible without a formal inquiry.

Respondent’s (Jaswant Singh’s) Arguments:

• Jaswant Singh argued that the discharge was not a simple termination but a punitive action.
• He contended that the recommendation for discharge was based on an allegation of misconduct (absence without intimation), which required a formal inquiry under Rule 16.24 of the PPR.
• He relied on the judgments in Amar Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2013) 4 PLJR 269 and Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar and Others, (2015) 15 SCC 151, to argue that when the foundation of a discharge is misconduct, a formal inquiry is mandatory.

The innovativeness of the argument by the respondent lies in the interpretation that the absence without intimation was a misconduct which required an inquiry before the discharge.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the order of discharge of the respondent-plaintiff was a simple order of discharge of a probationer constable under Rule 12.21 of PPR or it was punitive in nature requiring a formal inquiry under Rule 16.24 of PPR?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the discharge of Jaswant Singh was a simple termination of a probationer under Rule 12.21 of the PPR, and not a punitive action based on misconduct. The Court emphasized that the prolonged absence without intimation, while a cause for concern, did not constitute misconduct that required a formal inquiry. The Court also highlighted that the S.S.P. formed an opinion based on the recommendation of the supervising officer that the constable was not likely to prove himself as a good police officer.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the argument that the absence was a form of misconduct requiring an inquiry, but rejected this view. The Court reasoned that the absence was an indicator of the probationer’s unsuitability for the job, not a misconduct requiring formal disciplinary proceedings. The final decision was reached by applying the principles of law related to probation and the powers of the employer to assess the suitability of an employee during the probationary period.

The court held that the discharge was a simple termination of a probationer and not a punitive action.

The reasons for the decision were:

• The order of discharge did not mention any misconduct.
• The recommendation for discharge was based on lack of interest in training and responsibility.
• The probationer was found unlikely to prove himself a good and efficient police officer.
• Rule 12.21 of PPR allows for discharge of a constable within three years of enrolment if found unlikely to be an efficient officer.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “The respondent was discharged from service under Rule 12.21 of PPR as the appellants were of the opinion that the probationer constable was not likely to become an efficient police officer.”
• “Looking to the contents of the order of discharge, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no foundation of misconduct alleged in the order and it is an order of simpliciter discharge of a probationer constable.”
• “The authority found that the probationer constable has no interest in training, and no sense of responsibility, hence, he cannot prove himself a good, efficient police officer.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

The implications of this judgment are that employers can terminate the services of a probationer if they are deemed unsuitable, without conducting a formal inquiry, provided that the termination is not based on a specific allegation of misconduct.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this judgment.

Key Takeaways

✓ Employers have the right to terminate probationary employees if they are deemed unsuitable for the job.

✓ A simple termination of a probationer does not require a formal inquiry unless it is based on specific allegations of misconduct.

✓ Prolonged absence without intimation can be a valid reason for termination of a probationary employee if it indicates a lack of interest and responsibility.

✓ This judgment reinforces the principle that employers have the right to assess the suitability of employees during the probationary period.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments and decree passed by the High Court, the first appellate court, and the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), and dismissed the suit filed by Jaswant Singh.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the discharge of a probationary constable under Rule 12.21 of the PPR is valid if it is a simple termination based on unsuitability, and not a punitive action based on misconduct. This judgment reaffirms the established legal position regarding the termination of probationary employees and the distinction between simple termination and punitive action.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Punjab, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts. The Court held that the discharge of Jaswant Singh was a simple termination under Rule 12.21 of the PPR and did not require a formal inquiry. This judgment clarifies the scope of Rule 12.21 and reinforces the employer’s right to terminate probationary employees deemed unsuitable for the job.