# HARI Sll'IGH MANN v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

- **Citation:** [1975] 1 S.C.R. 774
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975
- **Bench:** A-"D K. K. Mathew
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hari-sll-igh-mann-v-the-state-of-punjab-ors-6247
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

PoA;aB Civil Servic<s (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, Rules 8{b)
and ':i--Termination oj servic~ of probation~r on ground of
unfitness
for
o~tU 1q Slate Surice--Exprn:sion "unfit to be appointed'', if carrits
.;,,,,,,,..
Tbe appellant was appointed on 20 May, 1965, on two ye=' probation,
On 1 Jnly, 1967 there was an order cncnding the period of probation by one
year.
On J.faY 20,
1968,
there wa:s an order
ter~inatinp,,, the services ·of
t.Re J"ritioncr. On )uly 20, 1968 there was an order revoking the order of
. termination and ·extending the period of probation for six months from 20th
May, 1968. The orde. of terminaloin was on Jan. 30, 1969. This order
rccitai that, having considere..J him nnfit for appointment to the State Police
Savio: the servi=i of the apP<;llant are dispensed with m ·tho expiry of hi•
cxlen<!ed period of probation. Two rontentions were raised bY. the •PJ"llant
in the lfigh Cowt. Finl, the order of termination was passed on Jan. 30,
1%9, when the petitioner, by reason of expiry Qf 3 year.; stood confirmed on
19/20 November,
1968 and Second, the order of termination was one of
pnnisfzment and the appellant should have bee_n ~ven an opportunity to show
caa<;e against the order of termination under Rule 9 of the Punjab Ci1il Service
Cl'nni5hment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. These contentions were rejected by
the Hi._m Court Hence the appeal to this Court by Sfu:ial Lern: .
IJi;missing the appeal,
..
A
B
c
D
HELD :
Tho object of extending the period of probation is to find out
r.·hethcr the appellant was a fit per.;on. The appellant could not be ronfirmed,
E
till 1"' reriod of probation expirod.. It cannot, therefore, be held that the
appdbnt stood confirmed on 19/20 November, 1968 before the period of probatio-n expired in January, 1969.-
[776A-B]
'
'
(1.) Termination on account of unsatisfactory record will attract rule 9
of t!l:: Punishment Rules..
Fitness W2S a matter to be considered at the time
of ooafirmation.
The order terminating the services is unfitness for appoint·
ment and not on the ground of any turpiUJde to attract Ruic 9 of the PunishF
ment Rules, 1952. To hold that the words "unfit to be appointed" mentioned
in th: oder of termination.,. are a sti__mla, '\\i:>uld deprive the authorities to ·
jud,l!C fitness for work or suitability to a PoSt at the time of confirmation.
TcnnWation of services on account of inadequacy for the job or for any
ten1p:amental or other defect not im:olving moral turpitude is not a stigma.
"'\\'hidJ. can ~ called discharge by punishment.
Fitness for the job is one
of the most important reasons for confirmation.
The facts and circum.:tances
do oot show that there was any stigrn?~ attached to the order of termination
and therefore. Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment & Aμp<:al)
G
Rule>_ 1952 is not attracted in the pcesent ca,;e.
(776G-777B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISD!CTIOS : Civil Appeal No.
1955 of
197-0.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order dl!ted the
5th November, 1969 of the Punjab & Haryana Higo Conrt in Civil
Writ No. 309 of 1969.
-
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala and V. l. Francis, for the appellant.
H
A
B·
c
H. S. MANN v. PUNJAB (Ray, C.J.)
775
V. C. Mahajan ard 0. P. Shanna, for the respondents.
The Judgment ci the Court was delivered by
RAY, CJ. This is 2!l appeal by special leave from the jud.;iment
dated 5 November, 1969 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
The only person is whether the order of termination of the service
of the appellant who was a ,:>robationer is in viohtion of Rule 9 of
the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1952 ..
The appellant was selected by the Public Service . Commi.sion as
a direct recruit on 20 May, 1965. He was appointed on 26 May,
1965. He joined as a probationer.
The period of probation was
two years.
·
Rule 8(b) of the Punjab Police Service Rules 1959 states that
the services of a member recruited by direct app<iintment may be
dispensed with by the Government on his failing to pass the f

## Text

HAR! Sll'IGH MANN
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
August 20, !974
[A. N. R•\.Y, CJ., A-"D K. K. MATHEW, J.J
PoA;aB Civil Servic<s (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, Rules 8{b)
and ':i--Termination oj servic~ of probation~r on ground of
unfitness
for
o~tU 1q Slate Surice--Exprn:sion "unfit to be appointed'', if carrits
.;,,,,,,,..
Tbe appellant was appointed on 20 May, 1965, on two ye=' probation,
On 1 Jnly, 1967 there was an order cncnding the period of probation by one
year.
On J.faY 20,
1968,
there wa:s an order
ter~inatinp,,, the services ·of
t.Re J"ritioncr. On )uly 20, 1968 there was an order revoking the order of
. termination and ·extending the period of probation for six months from 20th
May, 1968. The orde. of terminaloin was on Jan. 30, 1969. This order
rccitai that, having considere..J him nnfit for appointment to the State Police
Savio: the servi=i of the apP<;llant are dispensed with m ·tho expiry of hi•
cxlen<!ed period of probation. Two rontentions were raised bY. the •PJ"llant
in the lfigh Cowt. Finl, the order of termination was passed on Jan. 30,
1%9, when the petitioner, by reason of expiry Qf 3 year.; stood confirmed on
19/20 November,
1968 and Second, the order of termination was one of
pnnisfzment and the appellant should have bee_n ~ven an opportunity to show
caa<;e against the order of termination under Rule 9 of the Punjab Ci1il Service
Cl'nni5hment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. These contentions were rejected by
the Hi._m Court Hence the appeal to this Court by Sfu:ial Lern: .
IJi;missing the appeal,
..
A
B
c
D
HELD :
Tho object of extending the period of probation is to find out
r.·hethcr the appellant was a fit per.;on. The appellant could not be ronfirmed,
E
till 1"' reriod of probation expirod.. It cannot, therefore, be held that the
appdbnt stood confirmed on 19/20 November, 1968 before the period of probatio-n expired in January, 1969.-
[776A-B]
'
'
(1.) Termination on account of unsatisfactory record will attract rule 9
of t!l:: Punishment Rules..
Fitness W2S a matter to be considered at the time
of ooafirmation.
The order terminating the services is unfitness for appoint·
ment and not on the ground of any turpiUJde to attract Ruic 9 of the PunishF
ment Rules, 1952. To hold that the words "unfit to be appointed" mentioned
in th: oder of termination.,. are a sti__mla, '\\i:>uld deprive the authorities to ·
jud,l!C fitness for work or suitability to a PoSt at the time of confirmation.
TcnnWation of services on account of inadequacy for the job or for any
ten1p:amental or other defect not im:olving moral turpitude is not a stigma.
"'\\'hidJ. can ~ called discharge by punishment.
Fitness for the job is one
of the most important reasons for confirmation.
The facts and circum.:tances
do oot show that there was any stigrn?~ attached to the order of termination
and therefore. Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment & Aμp<:al)
G
Rule>_ 1952 is not attracted in the pcesent ca,;e.
(776G-777B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISD!CTIOS : Civil Appeal No.
1955 of
197-0.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order dl!ted the
5th November, 1969 of the Punjab & Haryana Higo Conrt in Civil
Writ No. 309 of 1969.
-
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala and V. l. Francis, for the appellant.
H
A
B·
c
H. S. MANN v. PUNJAB (Ray, C.J.)
775
V. C. Mahajan ard 0. P. Shanna, for the respondents.
The Judgment ci the Court was delivered by
RAY, CJ. This is 2!l appeal by special leave from the jud.;iment
dated 5 November, 1969 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
The only person is whether the order of termination of the service
of the appellant who was a ,:>robationer is in viohtion of Rule 9 of
the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1952 ..
The appellant was selected by the Public Service . Commi.sion as
a direct recruit on 20 May, 1965. He was appointed on 26 May,
1965. He joined as a probationer.
The period of probation was
two years.
·
Rule 8(b) of the Punjab Police Service Rules 1959 states that
the services of a member recruited by direct app<iintment may be
dispensed with by the Government on his failing to pass the final
examination at the end of his period of training, or on his
being
reported on during or at the end of his period of probation, 115 unfit
for appointment.
-
D
The order terminating· the
services of the appellant
was
as
E
F
G
H
follows:-
"The President of India is pleased to dispense with the
service of Shri Hari Singh Mann,
Probationery
Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Amritsar on the expiry of his
extended period of probation with .effect from
2-2-1969
(A.N.) under rule 8(b) of the Punjab Police Service Rules
1959; having considered him unfit for appointment to the
State Police Service. The period from 20-5-68 to 2-8-68
which has been tre-ated as leave of the kind due has been
excluded from the period of trial (Probation)."
The two contentions which have been advanced before the High
Court were repeated here. . First, the order of termination was passed
on 30 January, 1969 when the petitioner by reason of expiry of three
years stood confirmed on 19/20 November, 1968. Second the order
of termination was one of punishment and the appellant
should,
therefore, under Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and
cAppeal) Rules have been given opportunity to show cause again•t
· the order of termination.
Under the aforesaid (Police Service) Rule 8(b) provi.<o,
the·
Government could ·extend the period of probation by not· more than
one year.
The appellant was appoinied on 20 May, 1965 ,;n two
years probation. On. I July, 1967, there was "an order extending the
period of probation by one year. On 20 May, 1968, there was an
order terminating the services of the petitioner.
On 20 July. 1968
!here was
an
order
revoking
the
<irder
of
termination
and extending the period of probation for six months from 20 May,
1968.
The order of termination v.-as on 30 January, 1969. The
appe!Iant was on leave from 20 May, 1968 to 2 August, 1968. The
.. 776
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
. [J 975] 1 S.C.F..
Government excluded the p~riod of · lea''<' from
the
period
of
A
probation.
The object of extending the period of probation is to find
out
whether the appellant was a fit person.
The appellant could not be
confirmed till the period of pr9bation to find out . the fitness of the
3PJ'C'.llant expired. It cannot therefore be held that the appellant stood
conlirmed on 19/20 November, 1968 before the period of probation
.,
expired in January, 1969.
The appellant relied on Rule 9 of the Punjab
Civil Services
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952.
Rule 9 is as follows :-
"Where it is proposed to terminate the employment of
a probationer, whether during or at the end of the period
of probation, for any specific fault or on account of the unsatisfactory record or unfavourable reports
implying
the
unsuitability for the service, the
probationer
shall
be
npprised of the grounds of such proposal, and given
an
opportunity to show cause against it, before
orders
are
passed by the
authority
competent
to
terminate
the
appointment".
If (Punishment) Rule 9 applies the services of the appellant could
not be terminated without complying with the prc1Visions thereof.
The appellant contended that the order of termination stated that
the appel1'ant was considered unfit for appointment and therefore it
amounts to punishment to attract rule 9.
The appellant extracted
a statement from the affidavit of the Inspector General of Police in
answer to the
appellant's petition in the
High Court that
the
apoellant's record during the period Of probation was unsatisfactory.
Rdiance is placed on rule 9 where it is said that if the termination
of the Services of a "probationer be on
account of
unsatisfactory
record be shall be given an opportunity to show cause against it.
The respondent relied on rule 11 of the Punjab Police Service
Rules where it is sttlted that in matters relating to discipline, penalties
and appeals, members of the Service shall be governed by the Punjab
Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules.
Therefore, it
is
said by the respondent that Rules 8 and 11 of the Punjab Police
Service Rules show that termination of probation which is dealt with
in rule 8 is different from matters relating to penalties which are de-alt
with in rule 11 of the· Punjab Poliee Service Rules.
Termination on account of unsatisfactory record will attract rule
9 of the Punishment Rules. It is obvious that at the time of confirmation fitness is a matter to be considere<l.
The order terwinating
the services is unfitness for appointment at the time of confirmation.
it is not passed on the ground of any turpitude like misconduct or
inefficiency. To hold that the words "unfit to be appointed" are a
stigma would . rob the authorities of the power to judge fitness for
work or
suitability
to tbe
post at the
time · of
confirmation.
"'
D
E
f
G
H
A
B
H. S.
~IA1'1' r. PL" !AB (Ray, CJ.)
777
Termination of services on ac.:ount of
inadequacy for the job or
for any temperamental or ether defect not involving moral turpitude
is not a stigma which can be c:tlk.>d di,charge by punishment. Firncss
for
the job is cue of the
l:l''.1$!
important reasons
for cor.frmation.
The facts and circums;::;nces do no·t show that there is any
stigma attached to the order Di termination.
For these reasons. the app.."31 fails and is dismissed.
Parties will
pay and bear their own c0sts.
V.M.K.
Appeal dismissed.