G. P. Mathur, J. - (1.) This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred by the State of Punjab and others challenging the judgment and decree dated 30-1-2001 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by which the Second Appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed and the decree passed by the Courts below decreeing the respondents suit was affirmed.
(2.) The respondent-Sukhwinder Singh joined on 4-8-1989 as a police constable and was allotted number 644 in District Amritsar in the State of Punjab. He was sent for training at Police Recruit Training College, Jahan Khelan. He absented from duty w.e.f. 22-2-1990 without making any application for grant of leave or seeking permission for his absence. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, passed the following order on 16-3-1990 :- "Constable Sukhwinder Singh No. 644/ASR of this District is discharged from service w.e.f.16-3-1990 under Punjab Police Rules 12.21 as he is not likely to become an efficient police officer." The respondent-Sukhwinder Singh filed a civil suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, Amritsar, seeking a declaration that the order dated 16-3-1990, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, discharging him from service, was illegal and inoperative in law as it was passed by way of punishment, without holding any enquiry and without giving him any opportunity of hearing. The appellants herein contested the suit on various grounds and the main plea taken therein was that the respondent had to put in less than three years of service and was a probationer on the date of passing of the order dated 16-3-1990 and, therefore, he was rightly discharged under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) by the Senior Superintendent of Police. The Senior Superintendent of Police was of the opinion that the respondent was not likely to become an efficient police officer and, therefore, he exercised his powers under Rule 12.21. It was further pleaded that the respondent being a probationer had no right to the post. The order of discharge did not cast any stigma and did not affect him with any evil consequences.
(3.) The learned sub-Judge, Amritsar, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the order dated 16-3-1990 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, was illegal, null and void and accordingly passed a decree in favour of the respondent that he would continue in service and was entitled to his pay, powers, privileges and other service benefits of the post of a constable. The appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 28-5-1994 and the decree of the trial Court was afffirmed. The appellants then preferred a second appeal in the High Court, which was also dismissed on the finding that the respondent was thrown out of job on the ground of absence from duty. Absence from duty is a misconduct and it was a punishment which was imposed upon him without holding a formal inquiry as envisaged under Rule 16.24 (ix) of the Rules. Consequently the order of discharge dated 16-3-1990 was wholly illegal and contrary to law.;