Supreme Court Rules on Probationary Discharges: Distinguishes Between Simpliciter and Punitive Terminations
The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, has underscored the distinction between simpliciter termination and punitive termination. The Court emphasized that if a termination order is punitive or stigmatic, it becomes imperative to conduct an inquiry, ensuring the employee is given an opportunity to be heard. Failure to adhere to this procedure may render the termination illegal, violating the principles of natural justice.
The Court’s observation was based on the case State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (2004), which highlighted that
“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.”
The case before the Supreme Court involved an appeal against a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which dismissed a plea challenging the orders of lower courts. These orders deemed the discharge of a probationary constable (the respondent) as illegal, asserting he was entitled to all service benefits. The respondent, after joining duty on 12th November 1989, remained absent without any communication during his probation period. Consequently, the Superintendent of Police at the Training Centre recommended his discharge, citing Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which states:
“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 enrolment. There shall be no appeal against an order of discharge under this Rule.”
The respondent’s discharge was initially challenged in a trial court, which deemed the order illegal as it violated natural justice principles. The subsequent appellate court ruled in favor of the respondent, granting him all service benefits. The state’s appeal to the High Court was also dismissed, leading them to approach the Supreme Court.
The Apex Court, referencing the case of Sher Singh, Ex-Constable v. State of Haryana (1994), highlighted that the Superintendent of Police can invoke Rule 12.21 based on the performance and suitability of the probationer. The Court further cited Superintendent of Police v. Dwarka Das (1979) and Sukhwinder Singh’s case, emphasizing that if an employee is found unsuitable during probation, the employer has the right to terminate their service without a punitive inquiry.
The Court also referred to Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences (2002), which stressed the importance of language in termination orders, stating that
“In order to amount to a stigma, the order must be in a language which imputes something over and above mere unsuitability for the job.”
Concluding its judgment, the Supreme Court found that the foundational grounds for the respondent’s discharge were based on his prolonged absence from training without any communication. The Court stated,
“In our considered view, all the three Courts misconstrued Rule 12.21 of PPR and decreed the suit filed by the respondent. Looking to the contents of the order of discharge, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no foundation of misconduct alleged in the order and it is an order of simpliciter discharge of a probationer constable.”
Given these observations, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overruling the decisions of the High Court and the two lower courts.
Case title: State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh | Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 761, 2023INSC798
