# ~·· SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LUDHIANA & ANR v. DWARKA DAS ETC. November 28. 1978

- **Citation:** [1979] 2 S.C.R. 405
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1979
- **Case number:** Civil Writ Nos.800/66, 2625/65 and LPA No 141 of 1969
- **Bench:** P. N. Shinghal, D. A. Desai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/superintendent-of-police-ludhiana-anr-v-dwarka-das-etc-november-28-1978-7607
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

405
Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 12-21. power of discharge, whether exer·
cisable beyond 3 years ten1porary service of police officers.
The respondent writ pet.itioners were constables of the Punjab State Go·
vernment, and had put in more than 3 'Years service, when they \Vere dis·
-charged for inefficiency, under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
A
B
The High Court allov.'ed their writ petitions •challenging the validity of their
discharge-orders.
It \Vas contended by the Stat.e that although the respondents
C
had put in Rlore than three years service, their appointments \Vere temporary
and could be terminated for that reason, even if the termination could not
strictly b.:! said to fall within the purview of rule 12.21.
Dismissine the appeal, the Court
HELD : If rules 12.2(3) and 12.21 are read together, it will appear that
1he maximum period of probation in the case of a police officer of the rank
of \constable is three years and the pt)v.'er of discharge cannot be exercised
.under rule 12.21 after expiry of that period.
If ;it. is proposed to deal \Vith
an inefficient police officer after the expiry of three years, it is necessary to
do so in as.cordance \Vith the ndes of Chapter XVI of the Rules which makes
provision for the imposition of various punishments including dismissal from
the police force.
[408A-B]
The High Court was not justified in holding that a constable \'i'ho had
obtained a certitica•te under rule 12.32 cannot be dealt \Vith under rule 12.21
1'hat certificate is meant to serve the purpose of section 8 of the Police Act .
.1861, by ve!ting a public officer with the po\vers, functions and 'privileges of
.a police officer and has to be issued on his appointment as such. The certificate
is 1a letter of authority nnd enables the police officer to enter upon his duties
D
E
·as a police officer.
It has to be granted almost ~rom the inception and it is
F
not correct to say t.hat the mere issue of the certificate puts its holder beyond
the reach of rule 12.21 even if it is found that he is unlikely to prove nn
,efficient police officer and has not completed the period of ~hree years of his
enrolment. [ 4080-G]

## Text

~··
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LUDHIANA & ANR.
v.
DWARKA DAS ETC.
November 28. 1978
[P. N. SHINGHAL AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.J
405
Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 12-21. power of discharge, whether exer·
cisable beyond 3 years ten1porary service of police officers.
The respondent writ pet.itioners were constables of the Punjab State Go·
vernment, and had put in more than 3 'Years service, when they \Vere dis·
-charged for inefficiency, under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
A
B
The High Court allov.'ed their writ petitions •challenging the validity of their
discharge-orders.
It \Vas contended by the Stat.e that although the respondents
C
had put in Rlore than three years service, their appointments \Vere temporary
and could be terminated for that reason, even if the termination could not
strictly b.:! said to fall within the purview of rule 12.21.
Dismissine the appeal, the Court
HELD : If rules 12.2(3) and 12.21 are read together, it will appear that
1he maximum period of probation in the case of a police officer of the rank
of \constable is three years and the pt)v.'er of discharge cannot be exercised
.under rule 12.21 after expiry of that period.
If ;it. is proposed to deal \Vith
an inefficient police officer after the expiry of three years, it is necessary to
do so in as.cordance \Vith the ndes of Chapter XVI of the Rules which makes
provision for the imposition of various punishments including dismissal from
the police force.
[408A-B]
The High Court was not justified in holding that a constable \'i'ho had
obtained a certitica•te under rule 12.32 cannot be dealt \Vith under rule 12.21
1'hat certificate is meant to serve the purpose of section 8 of the Police Act .
.1861, by ve!ting a public officer with the po\vers, functions and 'privileges of
.a police officer and has to be issued on his appointment as such. The certificate
is 1a letter of authority nnd enables the police officer to enter upon his duties
D
E
·as a police officer.
It has to be granted almost ~rom the inception and it is
F
not correct to say t.hat the mere issue of the certificate puts its holder beyond
the reach of rule 12.21 even if it is found that he is unlikely to prove nn
,efficient police officer and has not completed the period of ~hree years of his
enrolment. [ 4080-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1286, 1287
and 2511 of 19e9G
From the Judgment and Order dated 20-8-1968 and 3-4-1969 of
the Punjab aud Haryana High
Court in Civil Writ Nos.800/66,
2625/65 and LPA No 141 of 1969.
Harbans Singh and R. N. Sachth•y for the Appellant in all
the
appeals.
H
E. C. Agarwala and M. L. Srivastava for the Respondent in C.A.
1286/69.
A
B
c
D
E
F
406
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1979] 2 S.C.R.
H. K. Puri for the Respondent in C. A. 1287169
N. N. Keswani for the Respondent in C.A. 2511/69
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHINGIIAL, J.
These three appeals by certificates granted by the·
High Court of Punjab and Haryana are directed against two
judgments of that court dated August 20, 1966, and another judgment of
that court dated November 22, 1968. The High Court first decided thee
writ petition of constable Dwarka Das, which is the subject matter of
appeal No.1286 of 1969, and disposed of the other two writ petitions,
which are the subject matter of appeals Nos. 1287 and 2511 of 1969,
on the basis of that judgment.
These three appeals therefore raise
common questions of l'!'V and have been he~rd together at the request
of learned counsel for the parties and will be disposed of by a common judgment.
The writ petitioners in all the three cases were recruited as constables
in the police-force of the Punjab State. It is not in dispute before
us that (i) they were police-officers of the State, (ii) they were enrolled as police-officers, (iii) they had put in more than three years.
service after their recruitment and enrolment as police-officers,
and
(iv) they were discharged under the provisions of rule 12.21 of the
Punjab Police Rules, 1934, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and
not by way of punishment under the provisions of Chapter XVI of
the Rules.
No attempt has been made to distinguish one case from
the· other, on facts.
On the other
hand, learned counsel for
the
parties are in agreement that the facts of the three cases are quite
similar and they raise the common question of law whether the orders.
of discharge were valid.
The respondents challen_ged the validity of
those orders by writ petitions which were allowed by the impug.1ed
judgments of the High Court aod the three appeals are before m for
that reason.
G
It has been argued by Mr. Harbans Singh, on bd1al[ of the itppellant State, that even though the respondents had put in n:ore than
three years service as police-officers of the State Government, their
appointrnents. were temr.orary and could be terminated for that reason·
even if the termination could not strictly be said to fall within
the
purview of rule 12.21 of the Rules. That in fact is the only question
H
for consideration in these appeals and can easily be answered v.ith
reference to the provisions of the Police Act, 1861, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the Rules.
I'
...,,..
,
•
•
SUPDT. POLICE I'. DWARKA DAS (Shinghal, !.)
407
Section .1 of the Act defines "Police" to include all persons who
A_
shall be enrolled under it.
Section 2 provides that the entire policeestablishment under the State Goverrunent shall be deemed to b~ one
police-force, and ~hall be formally enrolled. It further provides that
the conditions of service of the members of the subordinate ranks of
the police-force shall be such as m!!J b!e determined by the State Government. · Section 8 is also relevant, for it expressly provide> that
every police-officer appointed to the police-force of .the State (other
than an officer mentioned in section 4), shall receive on hi3 appointment a certificate in the form annexed to the Act, by virtue of which
he shall be vested with the powers, functions and privileges of
a
police-officer.
The certificate states that the police-officer concerned
has been appointed a member of the police-force under the Act, and
vested with the powers, functions and privileges of a
police-officer.
The certificate is not therefore the order of appointment or enrolment,
but is
subsequent to the appointment and
the enrolment,
even though it is a part of the process of appointment and enrolment,
in as much as it certifies that the police-officer has been vested with
the necessary powers, functions and privileges of a police-officer. The
certificate does not however have any bearing on the question whether
its holder is a permanent or a temporary police-officer, for that is a
matter which has to be governed by the other conditions of his service.
B
c
It is not in dispute before us that such certificates were issued to all
E.
the three respondents and that they functioned as police-officers for
-
more than three years.
Chapter XII of the Rules deals with the appointment and enrolment of police-officers.
Clause (3) of rule 12.2. provides. inter aija,
as follows,-
" ( 3) Ail appointments of enrolled police officers are on probation according to the rules in this ch~pter applicable
t;..1 each rank."
F
It is therefore
obvious that as
the respondents were
enrolled
police-officers. they were on probation.
The period of probation has
G
not been specified in the Rules. but rule 12.21 provides for the dtscharge of an inefficient police-officer as follows-
" 12.2 l. 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 enrohnent.
ff
There shall be no appeal against an order of discharge
under this rule."
A
B
c
D
E
:F
G
408
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 2 S.C.R.
So if rules 12.2(3) and 12.21 are read together, it will appear
that the maximum period of probation in the case of a police-officer
of the rank of constable is three years, for the Superintendent oi Police
concerned has the power to discharge him within that period.
It
follows that the power of discharge cannot be exercised under rule
12.21 after the expiry of the period of three years.
If therefore it is
proposed to deal with an inefficient police-officer after :he expiry of
that period, it is necessary to do so in accordance with the rules of
Chapter XVI of the Rules which makes provision for the imposition
of various punishments including dismissal from the police-force. It
is not permissible to ignore those rules and make a simple order of
discharge under rule 12.21 after the expiry of the period of three ye:,rs
for that will attract article 311 of tile Constitution.
The
Superintendent of Police concerned could not have ignored that requirement
of the law and terminated the services of the three respondents after
the expiry of the period of three years from their enrolment in the
police-force of the State.
The fljgh Court therefore rightly set aside the orders of termination ot the services of the three respondents and to that extent the
imp,1gned judgments are correct.
But we are cons.trained to say that
it was not justified in holding that "a constable who has obtained a
certificate under rule 12.22 cannot be dealt with under rule 12.21", and
that "if he is to be removed from service, procedure prescribed in Chapter XVI has to be followed." The reason is that, as has been shown,
the certificate prescribed under rule 12.22 is meant to serve th~ purpose of section 8 of the Act by vesting a police-officer with the powers,
functions and privileges of a police-officer, and has to be issued on his
appointment as such.
The certificate is thus a letter of authority, and
enables tbe police-officer concerned to enter upon his duties as
a
police-olficer. It has to be granted almost from the inception, when
a person is appointed and enrolled as
police-officer, and it i>
not
correct to say that the mere issue of the certificate puts its holder
beyond the reach of rule 12 .. 21 even if it is found that he is u,;lokely
to prove an efficient police-officer and has not completed the period
of three. years after his enrolment. Except for this slight clarification,
we find no merit in these appeals and they are dismissed with costs.
M.R.
Appeals dismissed.
•
•
....
'
I
,•-
,j
-•
JO.' .
. ·~
J