Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.7.1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar allowing an appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub-Judge First Class, Jalandhar dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent. 2. The respondent/plaintiff was appointed, as constable in Punjab Armed Police and he joined his duties on 10.9.1981 at Jalandhar. He successfully completed his training/recruitment course and worked as constable at various places to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. He did not earn any adverse report. His Services were terminated on 21.3.1983 by the Commandant The appellant challenged the order of termination by claiming itto be illegal, ultra-vires, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice. 3. The order was passed under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules (for Short the Rules). It was claimed that it was not passed by the competent authority and furtherthe provisions of Rule 12.21 of the Rules were not complied with in this case. 4. The plaintiff/respondent claimed that several representations were made for reviewing the order but no steps were taken to review the same and thus, the suit was filed. 5. Suit was contested on the ground that the appellant was not found likely, to be a good and efficient police officer as such he was discharged from Service under Rule 12.21 ofthe Rules. Other allegations were denied. 6. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the Order dated 21.3.1983 by virtue of which the plaintiff was discharged from the service is illegal, null and void ? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Relief. The suit was dismissed. 7 In appeal a plea was taken that no material was placed on record to prove that the appellant was not likely to prove to be a good police officer as periodical reports at the intervals of six months by the Sub Inspector or Inspector of Police under whom the respondent/plaintiff worked were not produced and considered. Thus, it was claimed that the discharge of the appellant under Rule 12.21 of the Rules was illegal. 8. Thus, it was claimed that the discharge of the appellant under Rule 12.21 of the Rules was illegal. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently contends that the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate court cannot be sustained as under Rule 12.21 ofthe Rules constable can he discharged from service on the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/State that the Superintendent of Police was competent to pass order under Rule 12.21 of the Rules which could not be the subject-matter of judicial scrutiny. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, however, contends that order under Rule 12.21 can be by way of punishment. The court can see whether order is of simple discharge or passed on other material. In support of this contention respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Smt Rajinder Kaur vs. Punjab State andanother, AIR 1986 SC 1790(1), wherein Honble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under :- "13. On a conspectus of all these decisions mentioned hereinbefore, the irresistible conclusion follows that the impugned order of discharge though couched in innocuous terms, is merely a comouflage fon an order of dismissal from service on the ground of misconduct. This order has been made without serving the appellant any charge-sheet, without asking for any explanation from her and without giving any opportunity to show cause against the purported order of dismissal from service and without giving any opportunity to cross-examtne the witnesses examined, that is, in other words the order has been made in total contravention of the provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The jmpugned order is, therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. A writ of certiorari be issued on the respondents to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 9.9.1980 of her dismissal from Service. A writ in the nature of mandamus and appropriate directions be issued to allow the appellant to be reinstated in the post from which she has been discharged The appeal is thus allowed wrth costs. The authorities concerned will pay all her emoluments to which she is entitled to in accordance with the extant rules as early as possible in any case not later than eight weeks from the date of this judgment." 10. The authorities concerned will pay all her emoluments to which she is entitled to in accordance with the extant rules as early as possible in any case not later than eight weeks from the date of this judgment." 10. Learned counsel forthe respondent also placed reliance on the judgment of this court in RSA No. 1224 of 1986 titled Sat Paul, Ex-Constable vs. Punjab State decided on 27.5.1988. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent further placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Punjab State vs. JoginderSingh, Ex-Constable, 1989(3) SLR 665 to contend that in the absence of periodical reports of the Sub Inspector under whom the constable is working the order under Rule 12.21 of the Rules cannot be sustained. This court has been pleased to lay down as under :- "6. There is absolutely no material on the record to prove that the plaintiff was not likely to prove a good police officer for which he could be discharged from service under Rule 12.21 of the Rules. Rule 19.5(1) of the Rules, provides as follows :- "The fact that a recruit has been passed into the ranks under Rule 19.3 shall not be taken to mean that he is a fully trained constable. A constable under three years service is at any time liable to discharge under Rule 12.21. During the whole of this period he shall be kept under dose supervision and reported on at intervals of six months in Form 19.5 (1) by the Sub Inspector or Inspector under whom he is working through his gazetted officer to the Superintendent of Police. The orderly head-constable shall maintain a list of constables under three years service. He shall submit the name of each man a month before he is due from confirmation to the Superintendent together with his personal file which shall contain the Form 19.5(1) referred to in this rule. The orderly head-constable shall maintain a list of constables under three years service. He shall submit the name of each man a month before he is due from confirmation to the Superintendent together with his personal file which shall contain the Form 19.5(1) referred to in this rule. Gazetted officers are expected to make themselves acquainted as far as possible with the character and career of all constables under three years service and shall be responsible that the name of men unlikely to make efficient police officers are brought to the notice of the Superintendent." It is evident from the said rule that the constable shall be kept under dose supervision and reported on at intervals of six months in Form 19.5(1) by the Sub Inspector or Inspector under whom he is working through his gazetted officer to the Superintendent of Police. No such six-monthly report has been brought on the record on behalf of the defendants. In the circumstances, there is no illegality in the concurrent findings of the two Courts below as to be interfered with in second appeal." The case in hand is squarely covered by the decision of this court in the case of Punjab State vs. Joginder Singh, Ex-Constable (supra). Thus, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this regulär second appeal for consideration of this court. No merit. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed