Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 August, 2022
214.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-3566-2015
Date of Decision: 03.08.2022
DARSHAN SINGH .... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pawan Sharda, Senior DAG, Punjab.
----
JAISHREE THAKUR.J
The petitioner was recruited as a Constable on 14.11.1989. He
continued to perform his duties with due diligence, however, he met with an
accident on 26.06.2005. He was unable to undergo the anti-terrorist course at
Bahadurgarh for which he had been deputed. As he was unable to move and
did not appear for duty, a charge-sheet was drawn up on 18.08.2005
regarding his absence from duty. The petitioner did not appear in the inquiry
proceedings and ultimately, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding
the petitioner guilty for absence from duty. The punishing authority
dismissed him from service by order dated 15.07.2006. The petitioner filed
an appeal stating that he was not intentionally absent from service but had
met with an accident and his leg was fractured, on which account, he could
not present himself either before the Inquiry Officer or at work. The appeal
1 of 4
was dismissed as was the revision petition by orders dated 02.05.2007 and
29.01.2008 respectively. A mercy petition thereafter was also preferred,
which too was dismissed.
The petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ
petition while stating that his dismissal orders do not take into account the
reason as to why he was absent from service, nor have they taken into
account his length of service and his entitlement for pension by considering
Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein,
while giving up his claim for reinstatement, relies upon Rule 16.2 of Punjab
Police Rules, 1934 to contend that it was incumbent upon the authority
concerned to have taken into account his entitlement for pension. He would
submit that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of Rule
16.2(1) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 inasmuch as the orders of punishment
of dismissal from service have not taken into account the service rendered by
the employee in regard to his entitlement for pension.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the
petitioner herein would not be entitled to any pension in view of the fact that
out of the gross service of 16 years, 8 months, the petitioner had served for
only 2 years, 4 months and 12 days as 10 years of service of the petitioner
had been forfeited by the competent authority due to his absence from duty
besides leave without pay for 872 days due to his absence from duty. His
service had been forfeited on four different occasions. Learned State counsel
would argue that it is by virtue of the fact that 10 years of his service stood
forfeited, the petitioner would not qualify for pension.
2 of 4
In response to the said argument, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon several judgments rendered by this Court in
support of his argument that at the time of dismissal, the authorities have to
take into consideration the length of service of the employee along with the
right to pension while awarding the punishment. He would rely upon
judgments rendered in Virender Singh Versus State of Haryana and others,
2014(13) R.C.R. (Civil) 300; Mewa Singh Pattar Versus State of Haryana
and others, 2015(3) S.C.T. 239; Onkar Singh Versus The Punjab State
through Collector, Gurdaspur and another, 2003(4) S.C.T. 55. Further
reliance has been placed upon a judgement rendered in Baljit Singh Versus
State of Punjab and others, 2020(4) S.C.T. 391, which allowed the claim of
the petitioner therein for grant of pension taking into account his length of
service rendered. The said judgment further noted decision in CWP
No.19196 of 2009, Napinder Singh Versus State of Punjab and others,
decided on 06.08.2012.
Counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though 10
years of service stands forfeited, however, the same have to be considered
and counted towards the length of service rendered by him for grant of
pensionary benefits. It is submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied in
case the authorities concerned would consider his claim by relying upon the
judgments as cited.
Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The orders of
dismissal of the petitioner from service are set aside. The matter is remitted
back to the competent authority to consider his claim for pension afresh in
the light of the observations made above after affording him an opportunity
3 of 4
of hearing. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 4 months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(JAISHREE THAKUR)
JUDGE
03.08.2022
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
