NAPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr.Manu K.Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. for the respondents at length.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Constable in the Punjab Police on 20.12.1979. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him for having remained absent from duty for a period of 296 days. Upon findings having been returned against the petitioner, vide order dated 25.3.2004 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner. An appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala vide order dated 12.8.2004. The petitioner preferred a revision petition and the same was rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala in terms of order dated 12.4.2005. A revision petition was then filed by the petitioner before the Director General of Police and in terms of order dated 2.1.2006, Annexure P6, the penalty of dismissal from service was affirmed. Still further, in such order dated 2.1.2006 passed by the Director General of Police, the petitioner was not held entitled for pensionary benefits.

(3.) Mr.Manu K.Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has, at the very outset, submitted that he is confining his grievance in the present petition only as regards the denial of pensionary benefits to the petitioner in spite of having served for a period of 25 years in the Punjab Police prior to the passing of the order dated 25.3.2004 whereby he had been dismissed from service. As such, the imposition of the penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner is not under challenge.