1. M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-----The appellant in this case was a temporary constable in the District of Jhang and was enrolled in that capacity with effect from 15-7-1971. At the relevant time he was posted on guard duty on Rivaz Bridge. On 3-4-1972 the D. S. P. Head Quarter found him absent from duty at 9-40 p.m. It may be observed that sentry duty of the appellant on that date was from 6-00 p.m. To 9-00 p.m. The D. S. P. Recorded absence of the appellant in the daily diary of the Police guard. It is further alleged that appellant destroyed or misplaced the daily diary of the Police guard in which his absence was recorded by the D. S. P. (H. Q.). The appellant being a temporary constable with less than three years service was dealt with under the provisions of para. 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules. He was served with a show-cause notice by the S. P., Jhang, in which charges of absence from duty on 3-4-1976 and wilfully destroying or misplacing the daily diary as narrated above were raised against him and he was asked to show cause as to why he should not be discharged under the provisions of para. 12.21 of the Police Rules as he was unlikely to prove an efficient Police Officer. The appellant submitted his written reply dated 22-8-1971 and was heard by the S. P. In person and his r.Ply being found unsatisfactory, the S. P. Passed the impugned order dated 12-10-1972 discharging the appellant from service with effect from the same date. The appellant submitted an appeal to the Inspector-General, Police which was rejected by him on 6-4- 1973 on. The ground that no appeal was provided against the order of discharge under para. 12.21 of the Police Rules. The appellant also filed a civil suit in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jhang which he withdrew on 28-10-1974 and filed the present appeal before us on 14-12-1974.
2. The appellant's contention is that on 3-4-1972, when the D. S. P. (H. Q.) found him absent he had gone to take his meals in the city as. There was no arrangement for preparing food at the bridge site. This contention has been belied by the S. P. As he has stated that messing arrangements did exist on the further end of the bridge and that was a much cheaper arrange--ment as compared to going to the city each time and coming back for the meals. Similarly the contention of the appellant that he was condemned unheard and no show-cause notice was issued to, him has been factually found incorrect as show-cause notice was issued to hm to which he did submit written reply dated 22-8-1971 and he was also personally heard by the S. P. Appellant's further contention is that it has been the consistent view of the I.-G. That the discharge of a temporary constable under para. 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules was ultra vires of the rules and the Constitution and that an appropriate enquiry and show-cause notice was a must in such cases. In support of this contention the appellant has placed on record the orders of the I.-G. P. In a number of cases of constables discharged under para. 12.21. He has also placed on record a letter dated 13- 3-1964 issued by the I.-G. P. In which it has been enjoined that the Foot Constable who are recruited temporarily are protected under the provisions of section 240(3) of Government of India Act, 1935, and, therefore, their discharges from service under para. 12.21 without observing the statutory provisions of an enquiry and issuance of show-cause notice, is irregular and bad in law.
3. We have heard the parties. The appellant was admittedly a temporary Foot Constable and at the time of his discharge from service under the A Impugned order had just about 15 months service to his credit. His case therefore comes within the mischief of para. 12.21 of tile Punjab Police Rule: which runs as under :- "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."
4. The letter of the I.-G. P. Dated 13-3-1964 relied upon by the appellant simply enjoins that the discharge of a Foot Constable under the above-mentioned para. 12.21 ; should not be ordered without providing proper opportunity to the delinquent Foot Constable. Lit the present case requirement has B been substantially complied with inasmuch as the appellant was admittedly served with a show-cause notice in which after narrating the lapse of the appellant it was clearly said that "In the circumstances you are unlikely to prove an efficient Police Officer. Thus you are hereby required to show cause why you should not be discharged under the provision of para. 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules being within three years of your enrolment." The appellant was required to show cause in writing which he did vide his written reply dated 22-8-1971 whereafter he was given a personal hearing by the S. P. The full facts of the case iii which the final order of the I.-G.
5. Was passed are not before us but apparently the case of the appellant is distinguishable inasmuch as he was served with a show-cause notice and was provided an opportunity to defend himself by submitting a reply in writing and being given a personal hearing by the competent authority.
6. In the circumstances of the case we do not feel persuaded to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is rejected with no orders as to costs.