- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Pratap Singh v. Union Territory Of Chandigarh
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant was appointed on 2 July 1973 as a temporary Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of Punjab. On 26 September 1977 the Senior Superintendent of Police terminated his services. The appellant challenged the termination before the Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of a writ petition, which was dismissed. He then obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India, leading to the present judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, by virtue of Rule 12.8(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, a police officer who has completed three years in service is deemed to be confirmed, thereby rendering his subsequent termination illegal.
- Whether the earlier Supreme Court decision in Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana v. Dwarka Das remains good law in light of the larger-Bench ruling in State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- Rule 12.8(1) places an officer on probation for three years; completion of that period confers deemed confirmation.
- Because he had crossed the three-year mark, his services could not legally be terminated without following the procedure applicable to confirmed employees.
- Relied on the Division Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana v. Dwarka Das (1979) 3 SCC 789; AIR 1979 SC 336, which held that the power to discharge cannot be exercised after three years.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana v. Dwarka Das (1979) 3 SCC 789; AIR 1979 SC 336 |
Held that a constable on probation is automatically confirmed after three years; discharge thereafter is impermissible. | The Court found this decision inconsistent with the five-Judge ruling in Dharam Singh and expressly overruled it. |
| State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh AIR 1968 SC 1210; (1968) 3 SCR 1 |
An employee allowed to continue after the specified probation period remains on probation unless expressly confirmed; mere expiry of time does not confer substantive right. | Treated as binding precedent; applied to hold that the appellant remained a probationer (if on probation at all) and could be terminated without an order of confirmation. |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first noted that the appellant was appointed purely on a temporary basis against a temporary vacancy, not against a substantive post; therefore, the probationary provisions of Rule 12.8 did not strictly apply. Even assuming arguendo that Rule 12.8 did govern the appointment, the Court relied on the larger-Bench decision in Dharam Singh to hold that completion of a probationary period does not result in automatic confirmation in the absence of an express rule to that effect. Because the Punjab Police Rules contain no provision deeming confirmation after three years, the appellant remained a probationer whose probation was impliedly extended.
The earlier Division Bench ruling in Dwarka Das was found to have overlooked Dharam Singh. As the latter emanated from a Bench of five judges, it prevailed; consequently, Dwarka Das was overruled to the extent of the conflict.
On these premises, the Court concluded that the Senior Superintendent of Police had the authority to terminate the appellant’s services at any time, and the termination order suffered from no legal infirmity.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed.
Direct Effect: The appellant’s termination stands affirmed. The Court granted him three months to vacate the government quarters upon furnishing an undertaking.
Broader Implications: By overruling Dwarka Das, the Court re-affirmed that, absent an express rule or order of confirmation, mere expiry of a probationary period does not vest a substantive right in the employee. The judgment reinforces the authority of larger-Bench decisions over contrary smaller-Bench rulings.
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.— This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of his termination passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police. The appellant was appointed on July 2, 1973 as a temporary Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. On September 26, 1977, his services were terminated by the Senior Superintendent of Police. Against this order, the appellant moved the High Court of Punjab and Haryana but his petition was rejected. Thereafter, he came to this Court and after obtaining special leave from this Court, the appeal has been placed before us for hearing.
2. The short point taken by the appellant in this appeal is that under Rule 12.8(1) of Punjab Police Rules, the petitioner must be considered to be on probation for a period of three years and as the appellant has crossed his period of three years, he must be deemed to have been confirmed and, therefore, his services could not be terminated. In support of this submission, reliance is placed by the appellant on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana v. Dwarka Das (1979) 3 SCC 789, AIR 1979 SC 336 where Shinghal, J., speaking for the Court observed as follows:
“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 of 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.”
3. It is true that the observations made by this Court support the contention of the appellant to an extent. But in our opinion, the Division Bench decision was not correctly decided as it has not considered the Five-Bench decision of this Court in case of State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh AIR 1968 SC 1210, (1968) 3 SCR 1 where after considering the number of cases, the Court observed thus: (SCR pp. 4, 5)
“This Court has consistently held that when a first appointment or promotion is made on probation for a specific period and the employee is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of the period without any specific order of confirmation, he should be deemed to continue in his post as a probationer only, in the absence of any indication to the contrary in the original order of appointment or promotion or the service rules. In such a case, an express order of confirmation is necessary to give the employee a substantive right to the post, and from the mere fact that he is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of the specified period of probation it is not possible to hold that he should be deemed to have been confirmed .... The reason for this conclusion is that where on the completion of the specified period of probation the employee is allowed to continue in the post without an order of confirmation, the only possible view to take in the absence of anything to the contrary in the original order of appointment or promotion or the service rules, is that the initial period of probation has been extended by necessary implication.”
4. In the instant case, the appellant was appointed purely on a temporary basis and not on probation and, therefore, Rule 12.8 which deals with officials who are appointed on probation does not apply to this case at all. It is well settled that a person is appointed on probation only if he is appointed against a substantive vacancy. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the appellant was appointed only against a temporary vacancy. Assuming, however, that Rule 12.8 of the Punjab Police Rules applies to the appellant's case and he is governed by Rule 12.8 even after the probation of three years is over, the police officer shall not be deemed to be confirmed unless there is any rule which provides that in absence of an order of confirmation at the end of the probation, the employee must be presumed to be confirmed. “There is no such provision in the present rules. In these circumstances, therefore, as held by this Court in the case of Dharam Singh AIR 1968 SC 1210, (1968) 3 SCR 1 it must be held that if no express order of confirmation was passed after the appellant completed three years, it must be presumed that his probation was extended.
5. In this view of the matter, as the appellant was a temporary hand, the services could be terminated at any time. It appears that the attention of this Court in Dwarka Das case (1979) 3 SCC 789, AIR 1979 SC 336 was not drawn to the case of State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh AIR 1968 SC 1210, (1968) 3 SCR 1 which has been decided by a larger Bench and therefore, the later decision rendered by this Court in Dwarka Das (1979) 3 SCC 789, AIR 1979 SC 336 is directly opposed to the view taken by the larger Bench and must, therefore, be overruled. For these reasons, therefore, we are unable to find any legal error in the order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police in terminating the services of the appellant.
6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
7. A request has been made by the appellant that he may be allowed to retain the government quarter which has been allotted to him for some time so as to enable him to find alternative accommodation. Mr Marwah, Counsel for the State, has no objection if a reasonable time is given to the appellant for this purpose. We, therefore, give three months' time to the appellant to vacate the government quarter allotted to him on his furnishing an undertaking to the Senior Superintendent of Police.
Alert