Recently, the Supreme Court provided clarification on the differentiation between "Simpliciter Termination" and "Punitive Termination."
The bench consisting of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan presided over a case involving the respondent, Jaswant Singh, who had been recruited as a constable within the Punjab Police. During his probationary period, he was discharged from his position by the Senior Superintendent of Police in Amritsar, based on the authority provided by Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
In response to the discharge order, the respondent (plaintiff) initiated legal proceedings by filing a lawsuit. The Trial Court partially granted relief to the respondent, ruling that the discharge order was unlawful due to a violation of the principles of Natural Justice.
Challenging this decision, the appellants (representing the State) filed their first appeal before the Additional District Judge in Amritsar. Concurrently, the respondent-plaintiff also filed a first appeal and requested a mandatory injunction. The basis for this request was that since the order discharging him from his position was deemed legally unsustainable, he should be permitted to resume his duties and receive all associated benefits.
In a unified judgment, the first appellate Court rejected the State's appeal and upheld the appeal of the respondent-plaintiff, granting him entitlement to receive all accrued service benefits.
Challenging the common judgment passed by the first appellate Court, two regular second appeals were filed before the High Court by the State Government. Both the appeals were dismissed by the impugned judgment.
The bench in the case referenced a previous case, Her Singh, Ex-Constable v. State of Haryana & Ors., wherein the Court established certain principles. According to this precedent, during the probationary period, a constable is subject to close supervision and surveillance. It's crucial to understand that a probationary employee has no inherent right to the position, and their services can be terminated at any point within that probationary period. To secure a permanent position in the service, the probationer must demonstrate to the Superintendent of Police that they have the potential to be an efficient police officer. In essence, the probationer's continuance in the role depends on their ability to convince the relevant authority of their suitability for the position.
Supreme Court also referred to the case of Ravindra Kumar Misra v. U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. and Another, where the Court while dealing the case of termination of a temporary employee, made a distinction between simpliciter termination and punitive termination applying the test of motive and foundation. The bench stated that S.P., Training Centre, vide memorandum dated 21.02.1991, made a recommendation to S.S.P. that the respondent-plaintiff had not shown any interest in the training and lacks sense of responsibility, further recommending that he is unlikely to prove himself as a good and 16 efficient police officer, hence, he may be discharged under Rule 12.21 of PPR. From perusal of the said Rule, it is apparent that in case a probationary constable is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer, he may be discharged by the Senior Superintendent of Police at any time within three years from the date of enrolment. The S.S.P. relying upon the recommendation of the supervising officer (S.P., Training Centre) formed an opinion that the probationary constable is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer owing to his demeanour as reported and discussed herein above.
The Supreme Court observed that all three courts had misinterpreted Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules (PPR) and had ruled in favor of the respondent plaintiff in the case. Upon reviewing the contents of the discharge order, it was evident that there was no accusation of misconduct mentioned in the order. Instead, it appeared to be a straightforward discharge of a probationary constable.
The bench referred to a precedent case, Amar Kumar v. State of Bihar and Others, where the Court had found that the appellant in that case had incited commotion, agitation, and protest, as well as spread false rumors regarding the death of one of the trainees. These actions were the basis for the termination order in that case. Consequently, the Court had ruled in the Amar Kumar case that the termination order could not be considered a simpliciter termination due to the presence of such misconduct allegations.
The Court held that the bench in said matter, noted that ''The S.P., Training Centre made a recommendation to S.S.P. that the respondent-plaintiff had not shown any interest in the training and lacks sense of responsibility, further recommending that he is unlikely to prove himself as a good and efficient police officer, hence, he may be discharged under Rule 12.21 of PPR. From perusal of the said Rule, it is apparent that in case a probationary constable is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer, he may be discharged by the Senior Superintendent of Police at any time within three years from the date of enrolment.''
''The S.S.P. relying upon the recommendation of the supervising officer (S.P., Training Centre) formed an opinion that the probationary constable is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer owing to his demeanour as reported and discussed herein above.Supreme Court stated that the foundation of discharge is not on any serious allegation or act of misconduct. ''
The discharge order was passed on the recommendation of the concerned supervisory authority of the Training Centre due to prolonged absence from training without any intimation. 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.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy