When a Tamil Nadu cadre IPS probationer fought a landmark battle for reinstatement

Anoop Jaiswal's legal battle against wrongful termination from service sets a precedent for future cases.

On June 22, 1981, IPS probationers at the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy, Hyderabad, were required to be present at 5.50 a.m. on the field for the ceremonial drill. It was a rainy morning, so the venue was shifted to the Gymnasium Hall. None of the probationers reached there on time. They were all late by 22 minutes, after the rain abated. Among the probationers was Anoop Jaiswal, a young man from Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh, who was allotted the Tamil Nadu cadre. He was considered one of the ring leaders responsible for the delay.

An explanation was sought from the probationers. “Dear Sir, In reply to your memo dated 22nd June, 1981, I humbly submit that as for my being late in P.T. by 10. mts., I sincerely regret the lapse. But the second charge that I instigated others to do so is totally baseless and without a single iota of truth. I request you, Sir, to make a thorough enquiry into such an allegation. I never had nor have such plebeian mentality,” wrote Jaiswal.

Academy Director Narendra Prasad, without holding an inquiry into the alleged misconduct, recommended to the Government of India that Jaiswal be discharged from service. The Government of India discharged him on November 5.

Mr. Jaiswal, who was by then married with his second child on the way, represented to the government to reconsider the matter. This time, the Academy Director recommended his reinstatement, but the government rejected it in April 1982. Mr. Jaiswal’s petition challenging the government’s decision was dismissed by the Delhi High Court at the stage of admission in August that year.

Thereafter, he knocked the doors of the Supreme Court with a Special Leave Petition. He argued that an order terminating his service could not have been passed without an inquiry as contemplated under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and the relevant rules governing such an inquiry. He also contended that the discharge order was based on conjunctures and surmises.

Although explanations were given by the other probationers too, “the only ground which ultimately prevailed upon the Director was that the appellant [Jaiswal] had not shown any sign of repentance without informing him that his case would be dealt with leniently if he showed a sign of repentance,” the Supreme Court noted. However, in the very first reply he gave to the Director, Mr. Jaiswal had stated, “I sincerely regret the lapse.”

“On going through the above record before the Court and taking into account all the attendant circumstances, we are satisfied that the Director wished to make the case of the appellant an example for others, including those other probationers who were similarly situated so that they may learn a lesson therefrom,” said the Bench of Justices E. S. Venkataramiah and R.B. Misra.