AB REHMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners unauthorized absence resulted in his discharge from the service on 1 -12 -2000. He was admittedly on probation as Special Police Officer (SPO) in the Jammu & Kashmir Police. The respondents invoked Rule 187 of the Police Rules and discharged him from the service as being a probationer. The only question to be determined in this petition is whether the order is discharge simplicitor or punitive.

(2.) THE perusal of the impugned order reveals that after recording the circumstances and facts of the case the order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police for discharging the petitioner reveals as under:

(3.) SCANNING through the contents of the order, it is visible that petitioners unauthorized absence is taken as the basis to determine the likelihood or unlikelihood of the police official to become good official or a bad official. Once foundation is the unauthorized absence of which the conduct of the petitioner is being judged to be a good or bad police official, it could not be said that the order is a discharge simplicitor. The order of discharge has cast stigma on the petitioner as he is likely not to get any future job on the basis of the stigma that has been cast on him by the order impugned. The respondents could have very safely passed the order of discharge simplicitor by stating that being unauthorized absence is required to be discharged by invoking Rule 187 of the Police Rules. This has not been done in the present case.