- (1.) Petitioner was appointed as Constable in the Punjab Police on 17.12.1970. While in service disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for absence from duty and after the completion of enquiry and other formalities, petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 18.12.1996. An appeal preferred therefrom against the order of dismissal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police also came to be dismissed on 19.01.1999. The order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioner in a civil suit. This suit came to be dismissed by the trial Court on 31.10.2001 and Civil First Appeal also met with same fate in terms of order of the Appellate Court dated 02.05.2002. The petitioner preferred Regular Second Appeal before this Court which came to be disposed of vide order dated 09.10.2003 with the following observations : "In the present case, the appellant had rendered about 26 years of service. It his 8 years' service which has been forfeited is excluded, then still he had rendered 18 years of service. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid authority of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and also keeping in view of the length of service of the appellant, his case may be considered favourably for the grant of pension within four months on filing a representation within one month. This Regular Second Appeal stands disposed of accordingly."
(2.) Consequent upon the aforesaid observations of the Court, petitioner made a representation to the respondents. The said representation has been dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2004 attached as Annexure P-7 with the present writ petition. While disposing the representation, the respondents have admitted that the petitioner has served the department for 26 years but he has been awarded major punishment of 12 years of forfeiture of his service on different occasions and about 3 years and 349 days of his service has been treated as leave without pay/non-duty period for various acts of misconducts attributed to him. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefits stands rejected. It is this order which is impugned in the present petition. The respondents in the writ petition filed, resisted the claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefits on the same ground as indicated in the order dated 17.03.2004.
(3.) The issue involved in the present petition is no more res integra and is squarely covered by various judgments of this Court reported as Ram Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, 2005 2 SCT 388 and Dhan Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2008 3 SCT 816. The same issue was also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chamba Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1997 2 SCT 631. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting Rule 16.5 of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 wherein the expression "qualifying service" has been defined observed :- "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-Rue (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.";