After the completion of the deputation, while the other trainee constables reported back to the Training Centre and joined, the respondent-plaintiff neither reported back nor gave any intimation for his non-reporting. Therefore, the S.P., Training Centre, made a recommendation to S.S.P., Amritsar to exercise power under Rule 12.21 of PPR to discharge the probationary constable. In the said recommendation, it was indicated that the act of non-reporting at the Training Centre without any intimation reflects absolute lack of interest in training and sense of responsibility. In this case of probationer respondent constable was discharged under R. 12.21, PPR, 1934 finding that he was not likely to become efficient police officer. It was held that no foundation of misconduct was alleged in discharge order, and thus was discharge simpliciter.
[State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh, (2023) 9 SCC 150]
Case Comment:
The principle that in order to determine whether the misconduct is motive or foundation of order of termination, the test to be applied is to ask the question as to what was the “object of the enquiry”. If an enquiry or an assessment is done with the object of finding out any misconduct on the part of the employee and for that reason his services are terminated, then it would be punitive in nature. On the other hand, if such an enquiry or an assessment is aimed at determining the suitability of an employee for a particular job, such termination would be termination simpliciter and not punitive in nature. This principle was laid down by Shah, J. (as he then was) as early as 1961 in the case of State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das, (1961) 1 SCR 606
Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/