Napinder Singh Petitioner v. State Of Punjab And Others S

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

1. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in the Punjab Police on 20.12.1979 Departmental proceedings were initiated against him for having remained absent from duty for a period of 296 days. Upon findings having been returned against the petitioner, vide order dated 25.3.2004 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner. An appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala vide order dated 12.8.2004 The petitioner preferred a revision petition and the same was rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala in terms of order dated 12.4.2005 A revision petition was then filed by the petitioner before the Director General of Police and in terms of order dated 2.1.2006, Annexure P6, the penalty of dismissal from service was affirmed. Still further, in such order dated 2.1.2006 passed by the Director General of Police, the petitioner was not held entitled for pensionary benefits.

2. Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has, at the very outset, submitted that he is confining his grievance in the present petition only as regards the denial of pensionary benefits to the petitioner in spite of having served for a period of 25 years in the Punjab Police prior to the passing of the order dated 25.3.2004 whereby he had been dismissed from service. As such, the imposition of the penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner is not under challenge.

3. It is not in dispute that it was only at the stage of rejection of his revision at the hands of the Director General of Police, Punjab that his claim for pension came to be considered and rejected. Such rejection of pensionary benefits in the order dated 2.1.2006 was in the following terms:

“Besides above, his 25 years service was forfeited with permanent effect and his 639 days leave was treated as NDP and 1172 days as leave without pay. As such, he is not entitled for pension.”

4. The initial order of dismissal dated 25.3.2004 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police as also the subsequent orders dated 12.8.2004 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and 12.4.2005 issued by the Inspector General of Police did not even consider the issue as regards the grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner in view of his past length of service.

5. Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 reads in the following terms:

“16.2 Dismissal - (1) Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension.”

6. In terms of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, a rider on the award of punishment has been incorporated in the Rule itself which, inter alia, requires the punishing authority to take into consideration the length of service of the delinquent and his claim to pension. The petitioner has been held not entitled to pension in terms of the order dated 2.1.2006 passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab on the basis that his 25 years of service stands forfeited with permanent effect and, accordingly, he is not entitled to the pensionary/retiral benefits.

7. It is now well settled that forfeiture of service by way of punishment does not affect the length of service rendered by an employee and the said service has to count towards qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chamba Singh v. State of Punjab, reported as 1997 Judicial Reports (Labour & Services) SCC 538 while examining the scope of Rule 16.5 of the Punjab Civil Services (Pre-mature Retirement) Rules, 1975 had held in the following terms:

“The effect, therefore, of the punishment of forfeiture of two years for the purpose of increments is that there is deferment of increment or increments over the forfeited period or there is reduction in pay. It does not have any impact on the length of service qualifying for pension which is the qualifying service to be taken into account for the purpose of compulsory retirement. It is contended by the appellant that since Sub Rule (3) of Rule 16.5 provides that on the expiry of the period fixed under Sub Rule (1) or (2) of Rule 16.5, reinstatement is subject to good conduct and it is open to the department to pass a separate order not to reinstate an officer, there is a break in the service of the officer when an order is passed under Sub Rule (1) or (2). However, reinstatement in the context of Rule 16.5 can refer only to the resumption of service for the purpose of grant of increments. Forfeiture of service for the grant of increments does not result in termination of employment. Thus, Sub Rule (1) provides for withholding of increments of a police officer on a time scale as a punishment. There is no reference in this sub rule to forfeiture of service. Yet Sub-Rule (3) applies to an order under Sub-Rule (3) applies to an order under Sub Rule (1) as much as to an order under Sub Rule (2). Under Sub Rule (2), the forfeiture is expressly of Approved service for the purpose of increments. Such forfeiture may be temporary or permanent. This Rule has no bearing on qualifying service for compulsory/premature retirement.”

8. Even the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chamba Singh's case (supra) vide judgment dated 1.10.2008 in Civil Writ Petition No. 6447 of 2004 titled as ‘Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab’ had clearly held the petitioner therein to be entitled to the pensionary benefits on account of the past service rendered notwithstanding the forfeiture. It was held in categoric terms that forfeiture of service would have no bearing on the qualifying service for purposes of grant of pensionary benefits. In fact, in the present case, it is the admitted position that the petitioner had rendered 25 years of service prior to the passing of order of dismissal.

9. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled to the pensionary benefits. The order dated 2.1.2006, Annexure P6, passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab is set aside to the extent of holding the petitioner to be not entitled for pension. The petition is allowed to such extent and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of pensionary/retiral benefits on the basis of 25 years of service rendered by him. Respondents are further directed to pass the requisite consequential order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.