Punjab-Haryana High Court
Head Constbale Kuldip Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 14 March, 2022
CWP No. 2881 of 2019 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(Heard through VC)
CWP No. 2881 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.3.2022
Head Constable Kuldip Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Ms. R.K. Arya, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanisth Ganeriwala, AAG, Punjab.
JAISHREE THAKUR, J.
1. The petitioner herein by way of instant writ petition seeks
quashing of the order dated 27.10.2015 passed by respondent No. 3,
whereby one year approved service for increment of the petitioner has been
forfeited with permanent effect and also for quashing the order dated
26.2.2018 passed by respondent No. 2 enhancing the punishment of
forfeiture of one year approved service for increment to that of forfeiture of
two years approved service with permanent effect.
2. In brief the facts are that the petitioner was appointed as
Constable in the Police Department on 10.3.1992 and thereafter was
promoted as Head Constable. While posted to Police Lines, Gurdaspur on
31.12.2012, the petitioner remained absent from duty and reported only on
7.3.2013 after remaining absent for 65 days, 17 hours and 40 minutes. A
departmental inquiry was held and the petitioner relied upon the medical
1 of 4
certificate to substantiate his plea that he was on medical treatment and had
been advised complete bed rest. On conclusion of the departmental inquiry,
the Inquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of absent from duty and then a
show cause notice was served upon the petitioner by Senior Superintendent
of Police, Gurdaspur, proposing punishment of forfeiture of one year
approved service for increment with permanent effect. A reply was given to
the show cause notice stating the reason for remaining absent from duty.
However, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, by order dated
27.10.2015 forfeited one year approved service of the petitioner for
increment with permanent effect.
3. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar, was dismissed and the
punishment was enhanced to forfeiture of two years approved service of the
petitioner with permanent effect, which has led to the filing of the instant
petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would limit his argument to
the extent that as per the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the order of forfeiture of two year's
approved service permanently is not permissible and only stoppage of
increment or forfeiture of approved service for increment was permissible.
In this regard, he would rely upon the judgment rendered by this Court in
Harminder Singh Versus State of Punjab and others 2013 (1) PLR 302,
which judgment has been passed by placing reliance upon Punjab State
Versus Joginder Singh 1992 (3) SCT 671.
2 of 4
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent--State would
argue that the petitioner herein, who is Head Constable, belonging to the
disciplined force, remained absent from duty without due intimation and,
therefore, there is no infirmity with the impugned order so passed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone
through the pleadings as well as the law as cited.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner herein was charge sheeted for
remaining absent from duty for 65 days, 17 hours and 40 minutes without
prior sanction. A department inquiry was held and a show cause notice was
issued and after due consideration of the inquiry report, the Senior
Superintendent of Police imposed the punishment of forfeiture of one year
approved service for annual increment and his absent period was treated as
period without salary. This order was appealed against and by the
impugned order, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Border Range,
Amritsar forfeited two years approved service of the petitioner permanently,
for which there is no such provision in Rule 16.2 of the Rules. As per the
Rules, for departmental punishment, there is dismissal in service, reduction
in rank, stoppage of increment or for forfeiture of approved service of
increment, entry of censure, confinement to quarter for a period not
exceeding 15 days etc. A reading of the said Rule would clearly indicate
that there is no such provision prescribed under the Rules for forfeiture of
approved service as has been done in the instant case.
8. A similar matter was also decided in CWP No. 9146 of 1994
titled Constable Sarjinder Singh V. State of Punjab and others decided
on 3.10.2012 wherein it has been held that forfeiture of approved service
3 of 4
could not be imposed as the said punishment was not provided under the
Rules. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is
not sustainable.
9. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed, the
impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the
respondents to pass a fresh order within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14.3.2022 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
prem JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
4 of 4
