LAWS(SC)-1997-4-71

CHAMBA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On April 09, 1997
CHAMBA SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant joined the Punjab Police Department as a Constable on March 30, 1961. In 1961 he was promoted as Head Constable. He was thereafter promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector. He was served with an order dated September 2, 1987 of premature retirement from service in public interest. The order states that whereas the appellant has completed more than 25 years of service on 1-4-86 and whereas on consideration of his case, the concerned authority is of the opinion that it is in public interest to retire the appellant from service, therefore, in pursuance of Rule 3(i)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 he is being retired on payment of three months salary on 2-9-1987. It seems that during his service, the appellant had been subjected to the punishment of forfeiture of three years service for increment. This forfeiture was later reduced to two years of service for the purpose of increment. The appellant contends that if the forfeited service of two years is excluded from his service, he cannot be said to have completed 25 years qualifying service on 2-9-1987 and hence the order of compulsory retirement must be set aside.

(2.) Under the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975, the expression "qualifying service" has been defined in Rule 2(3) of the said Rules to mean "Service qualifying for pension". We have, therefore, to consider the effect of forfeiture of service for the purpose of increment under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and its impact on the relevant provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. The punishment which was imposed in this case on the appellant was under the Punjab Police Rules of 1934. Rule 16.1(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 states that no police officer shall be departmentally punished otherwise than as provided in these Rules. Rule 16.5 provides as follows:

(3.) The appellant continued in service throughout this period. His right to receive increments alone was affected. If the period of "forfeited" service under Rule 16.5(2) is to be deducted from qualifying service for compulsory retirement, it would have the paradoxical result of granting longer service to such an employee for compulsory retirement. He would have to be allowed to work for additional years to make up the forfeited years, before he can be compulsorily retired. This is not the intention of Rule 16.5. The appellant placed reliance upon a decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Shri Bhagat Ram v. Inspector General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, (1979) 3 Serv LR 256. The judgment has proceeded on the assumption that forfeiture of service for the purpose of increment is equivalent to a reduction in the period of qualifying service. For reasons which we have already set out, this is not a correct interpretation of the punishment of forfeiture of service for the purpose of increments.