J. M. Tandon, J. - (1.) Sucha Singh petitioner was appointed a Constable in Patiala district on 20-11-1962. In Nov., 1963, he was transferred to Ambala district. At the time of reorganisation of the State w.e.f. 1-11-1966 he was allocated to the State of Haryana. He was on leave from 8-10-1971 to 28-10-1971.During this period, he was involved in a murder case. The Sessions Judge, Ropar convicted him under section 304, Penal Code and sentenced him to 10 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court on 28-9-1973 (According to the petitioner, the sentence of 10 years R.I. awarded to him was reduced to 7 years R. I. in appeal). The case of the petitioner is that after release from jail on 1-2-1977, he reported for duty to the Superintendent of Police, Ambala but he was not allowed to join. The petitioner got the notice dated 9-1-1978 (P. 1) issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ambala through his counsel wherein he prayed for being allowed to join duty as a Constable and also for his salary w.e.f. 1-2-1977. The Superintendent of Police, Ambala sent communication dated 3-5-1978 (P. 2) to the petitioner wherein he was informed that consequent upon his conviction and sentence awarded to him he had been dismissed from service w.e.f. 30-8-1972 vide order dated 20-5-1976 under rule 16.2 (2) of the Punjab Police Rules (hereafter the rules). The petitioner has assailed the order P. 2 in the present writ petition.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under rule 16.2(2) of the rules, the order dismissing the petitioner from service could be effective from the date it was made and communicated to him. The order dismissing the petitioner passed on 20-5-1976 could not be made retrospective w.e.f. 30-8-1972. The order of dismissal was communicated to the petitioner on 3-5-1978. The petitioner, therefore, could be treated to have been dismissed from service w.e.f. that date (3-5-1978).
(3.) Learned counsel for the State has contended that the petitioner stood dismissed from service w.e.f. the date (30-8-1972) he was convicted and sentenced to 10 years R. 1. by Sessions Judge, Ropar, or w.e.f. the date his appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 28-9-73 as provided in rule 16.2(2) of the rules. Alter the petitioner was convicted and sentenced, the competent authority had no jurisdiction to retain the petitioner in service. The formal order of dismissal passed by the competent authority shall be effective in terms of the provisions contained in rule 16 2(2) irrespective of the fact that it was passed on 20-5-1976 and communicated to the petitioner on 3-5-1978.;