The Punjab and Haryana High Court upholds that a probationer may be discharged without departmental inquiry under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, even when the order contains stigmatic language, if adverse verification is not conclusively disproved. The judgment reaffirms existing service law precedent and is binding within the State of Haryana’s police service context.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/16827/2003 of RAJESH KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. |
| CNR | PHHC010126462003 |
| Date of Registration | 05-05-5500 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction for discharge of police probationers under Rule 12.21 PPR |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Police Service Rules |
| Questions of Law | Whether a probationer can be discharged without departmental inquiry based on purportedly stigmatic grounds, where credentials are doubted but not conclusively disproved? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that a probationer may be discharged without a formal departmental inquiry under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, even if the discharge order uses potentially stigmatic language, when there is ongoing doubt regarding the genuineness of the probational credentials and the relevant authority has not conclusively validated the credentials. The absence of a conclusive subsequent report from the issuing authority, despite renewal processes, sustains the employer’s adverse presumption. The significant passage of time (22 years) and absence of a clear exoneration by the licensing authority were material. The Court distinguished from the cited Jammu & Kashmir High Court precedent, holding the facts and context here to require dismissal of the challenge. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Showkat Ahmad Kundoo Vs State (J&K HC, SWP No. 196 of 2017, Law Finder Doc Id #1603160) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Interpretation of Rule 12.21 PPR regarding discharge of probationers; factual analysis of the genuineness of credentials and time elapsed; reliance on factual distinction from Showkat Ahmad Kundoo’s case. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, appointed as a Driver (Constable) in 2003, was discharged for submitting a driving license found to be inauthentic after adverse verification. The petitioner claimed the subsequent renewal by a different authority validated his credentials, but the original authority never confirmed genuineness. FIR proceedings ended in acquittal, but employment was not restored. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Haryana concerning police probationer discharge. |
| Persuasive For | Service law matters in other High Courts; cases involving discharge of probationers on credential grounds. |
| Follows | Showkat Ahmad Kundoo Vs State (J&K HC, cited but distinguished). |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that discharge of a probationer under Rule 12.21 PPR does not require a departmental inquiry, even if the discharge order contains potentially stigmatic language, provided the employer’s adverse inference about document genuineness remains uncontradicted.
- Long lapse of time and absence of a conclusive positive verification from the original issuing authority are relevant factors.
- The cited precedent from another High Court (Showkat Ahmad Kundoo) is not strictly applicable in differing factual circumstances, especially where relevant authorities never clearly validated the credentials.
- Renewal of an official document by a different authority does not take precedence over adverse findings from the original issuing authority without explicit exoneration.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, which allows for discharge of a probationer without regular inquiry.
- It examined the nature of the order, the language used (“unlikely to become a good officer”), and whether it was stigmatic.
- The Court found that, while the language might be commonly seen as stigmatic, the central question remains the substantiveness of the adverse verification report regarding the genuineness of the petitioner’s driving license.
- The petitioner relied on the Jammu and Kashmir High Court’s decision in Showkat Ahmad Kundoo, arguing a discharge order containing stigmatic remarks must be quashed unless a proper inquiry is held. The Court distinguished this case as the facts differed: here, there was no valid confirmation from the original issuer of the license, despite renewal by another authority.
- The long passage of time (22 years) without exoneration or validation of the license’s genuineness strengthened the employer’s position.
- The Court declined to interfere, underscoring the significance of original adverse verification and the lack of positive contrary evidence from the licensing authority.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The impugned discharge order is stigmatic, using the phrase “unlikely to become a good officer.”
- Order was passed while inquiry regarding license genuineness was pending.
- The license had been renewed by the District Transport Officer after seeking a report from the original issuing authority.
- There was no valid reason to treat the license as bogus after such renewal.
- The case is covered by Showkat Ahmad Kundoo Vs State, which requires setting aside such orders as stigmatic without inquiry.
Respondent (State):
- The Commandant’s verification revealed the driving license to be bogus.
- The respondent was a probationer, and Rule 12.21 permits discharge without a formal departmental inquiry.
- Pursuant to the report, the District Transport Officer again sought confirmation from the original authority, which never responded.
- Continued doubt about the genuineness of the credentials justified the discharge.
Factual Background
The petitioner was selected as a Driver (Constable) in the Haryana Police in 2003 and joined service on 15 March 2003. Verification of his driving license by the Commandant with the Licensing Authority, Mathura (U.P.), raised doubts about its authenticity. Despite subsequent renewal by the District Transport Officer, Kaithal, based on a report from the original licensing authority, no conclusive affirmation of genuineness was received from Mathura. The petitioner’s service was terminated via a discharge order citing doubts over credentials. An FIR was registered but the petitioner was later acquitted; nevertheless, his dismissal was not reversed.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana) was central to the Court’s reasoning.
- The provision permits discharge of probationers without a formal, regular departmental inquiry.
- The Court analyzed whether stigmatic language in the order mandated a stricter procedural safeguard; it determined that in cases lacking clear evidence of credential authenticity, the employer’s discretion under Rule 12.21 was appropriately exercised.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded; the judgment is authored solely by Justice Jagmohan Bansal.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directions are recorded in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment reiterates and applies existing law regarding discharge of probationers under service rules without regular departmental inquiry when adverse findings are not conclusively rebutted.