JUDGMENT Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia J.:- Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 13.12.1990 (Annexure P-1) wherein the petitioner, who was serving as Constable in Gurgaon District, was discharged from service, with immediate effect, under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to Haryana State (for short, the ‘Rules’), by respondent No.3. Challenge has also been laid to the speaking order (Annexure P-4), passed by respondent No.2, in pursuance of the directions of this Court whereby his appeal-cumrepresentation, filed against the order of discharge, had been rejected. 2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he had joined service as Constable in the Gurgaon District on 08.01.1989 and thereafter, he was transferred to Government Railway Police, Haryana and was deputed for training which he completed successfully. While on patrol duty on 25.11.1990, the trigger of the rifle handled by the petitioner was inadvertently pressed and one shot went of which hit the wall of the water post at the platform and a splinter caused a minor injury to a passenger. The order of discharge was passed thereafter under Rule 12.21 of the Rules which was an order in camouflage and innocuously worded to the dismissal of the petitioner without any enquiry and against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner filed CWP No.9550 of 1992 titled Anil Kumar Vs. State of Haryana in which a direction was issued by the Division Bench of this Court on 15.09.1992 to pass a speaking order. In pursuance of the same, a speaking order was passed by respondent No.2 whereby the discharge has been upheld. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed on the ground that the said order is liable to be quashed as the same is by way of penalty and could not have been passed without an enquiry contemplated under Rule 16.24 of the Rules. 3. The State, in its reply, stated that the petitioner had tried to load his rifle on 25.11.1990 due to which the bullet had gone off and the cartridge hit against the water post and some splinters from the structures caused injury to a passenger. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Railway, Hisar found the petitioner guilty of negligence in the discharge of his duty and was adjudged unfit to become an efficient police officer. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Railway, Hisar found the petitioner guilty of negligence in the discharge of his duty and was adjudged unfit to become an efficient police officer. The protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India was not applicable in the present case since the petitioner was discharged under Rule 12.21 of the Rules, within the period of probation and no enquiry was required. The discharge order was not punitive and passed on the ground that he was unfit to become a police officer. Apart from the said act of extreme negligence, he had been wilfully absent from duty on four occasions which was also taken into consideration while deciding the representation. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no enquiry was conducted and the petitioner had been penalized and there is violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. State, on the other hand, defended the same, pleading that the case of the police officer who had been appointed and not found to be efficient, could be discharged at any time, within three years of enrollment. 6. Rule 12.21 of the Rule reads as under: “12.21. Discharge of Inefficients. - 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.” 7. In the present case, the order passed by respondent No.2 reads as under: “Constable Anil Kumar No.10/GRP is found unlikely to become an efficient police officer. He is, therefore, discharged from service with immediate effect under PPR 12.21. Superintendent of Police, Railway, Haryana, Ambala Cantt. No.38024-30/A-1 dated Ambala Cantt. The 13.12.90.” 8. A perusal of the said order go on to show that that it was not punitive in any manner and the Superintendent of Police, Ambala Cantt. came to a conclusion that the petitioner was not fit to become an efficient police officer. A Full Bench of this Court in Sher Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1994 (1) PLR 456 has held that a Head Constable has no right to the post for the first three years and his services can be terminated as it is basically a period of probation. The said view was approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. State of Haryana 1994 (1) PLR 456 has held that a Head Constable has no right to the post for the first three years and his services can be terminated as it is basically a period of probation. The said view was approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Sukhwinder Singh, [2005(3) Law Herald (P&H) 516 (SC)] : AIR 2005 (SC) 2960 and State of U.P. & others Vs. Rajender Kumar Singh & others 1997 (10) SCC 682 . The observations of the three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab (supra) reads as under: “The decision to discharge a probationer during the period of probation or the order to terminate the service of a temporary employee is taken by the appointing authority or administrative heads of various departments, who are not judicially trained people. The superior authorities of the departments have to take work from an employee and they are the best people to judge whether an employee should be continued in service and made a permanent employee or not having regard to his performance, conduct and overall suitability for the job. As mentioned earlier a probationer is on test and a temporary employee has no right to the post. If mere holding of an inquiry to ascertain the relevant facts for arriving at a decision on objective considerations whether to continue the employee in service or to make him permanent is treated as an inquiry “for the purpose of imposing punishment” and an order of discharge or termination of service as a result thereof “punitive in character”,the fundamental difference between a probationer or a temporary employee and a permanent employee would be completely obliterated, which would be wholly wrong.” 9. Thus, from the above observations, it would be clear that the order of discharge is not punitive in character as the probationer is on test and has no right to the post. In the present case, respondent No.2, in pursuance of the orders of this Court, dismissed the appeal-cum-representation of the petitioner after taking into account the incident dated 25.11.1990 and the service record of the petitioner wherein he had been found absent on four different occasions from 27/28.04.1989 to 22.11.1990. In the present case, respondent No.2, in pursuance of the orders of this Court, dismissed the appeal-cum-representation of the petitioner after taking into account the incident dated 25.11.1990 and the service record of the petitioner wherein he had been found absent on four different occasions from 27/28.04.1989 to 22.11.1990. Accordingly, it had been noticed that under Rule 12.21 of the Rules, no regular procedure had to be followed as provided under Rule 16.24 of the Rules and the petitioner’s performance had not been found satisfactory in less than 2 years of service. 10. Keeping in view the cumulative discussions and the fact that the petitioner has no legal right, no interference is called for in the orders impugned. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ——————————