VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

586 DECISION - 277
of the Inquiry Officer and accepts the reasons given by him in support
of such findings, it is not necessary for it to again discuss evidence
and come to the same findings as that of the Inquiry Officer and give
the same reasons for the findings. The Supreme Court observed that
it is incorrect to say that the order is not a speaking order.
(277)
(A) Termination — of probationer
Discharge of Police Officer on probation on ground
of “unsatisfactory work and conduct” does not
amount to stigma.
(B) Probationer — automatic confirmation
A Probationery Indian Police Service Officer, after
expiry of period of four years, stands automatically
confirmed.
State of Gujarat vs. Akhilesh C Bhargav,
1987(5) SLR SC 270
This appeal by special leave is against the appellate order of
the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court. Respondent No.1 was
appointed to the Indian Police Service on 4-7-69 and has been
discharged by the impugned order dated 9-4-74. The order of
discharge was assailed by filing a writ petition. The single Judge
annulled the order. Appeals were preferred by the State Government
of Gujarat and the Union of India and the Division Bench came to the
same conclusion.
The Supreme Court referred to the case of State of Orissa
and anr. vs. Ram Narayan Das (1961(1) SCR 606) where the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that in the case of a
probationer, observation like ‘unsatisfactory work and conduct’ would
not amount to stigma.
The other aspect is as to whether the respondent should