BALBIR KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gurbaksh Singh, Ex-Constable, the husband of the petitioner died on 22.9.2010. Now, his wife (present petitioner) has filed the present writ petition in the year 2014, challenging the impugned order dated 22.7.2005 (Annexure-P-2), vide which the claim of the husband of the petitioner for premature retirement was declined. She also seeks the quashing of the impugned order dated 22.7.2005 (Annexure-P-2), where by the husband of the petitioner was dismissed from service. She also claims the pensionary benefits on behalf of her husband till the date of death of her husband i.e. 22.9.2010 as he had completed 21 years, 9 months and 18 days of service rendered before the said date of dismissal with 18% per annum interest by considering the case under the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. It is further prayed that the punishment imposed upon the husband of the petitioner may be converted into premature/compulsory retirement in view of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules after considering the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules.

(2.) The State in the reply has admitted that Gurbakhsh Singh was recruited as a Constable on 20.10.1981 by the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana. He was placed under suspension as he was not present during the morning roll call on 13.9.2004. A daily diary report No. 3 at 8:10 AM was recorded on 13.9.2004 at Police Line, Ludhiana. He continuously remained absent from the said date and never reported back for duty. A regular departmental inquiry was conducted by Inspector Manjit Singh, the then SHO, Division No. 3, Ludhiana. The husband of the petitioner was served various notices, which were received by the husband of the petitioner or his relations, but he did not join the departmental inquiry. Therefore, ex-parte departmental inquiry was conducted, in which he was held guilty. Thereafter, a show cause notice, proposing the punishment of dismissal from service, was served upon the husband of the petitioner and was received by him under his signatures on 7.7.2005. He even did not reply to the said show cause notice. Consequently, the order dated 22.7.2005 (Annexure-P-2) was passed. The husband of the petitioner remained continuously absent from duty with effect from 13.9.2004 till the date of dismissal from service and the said time was treated as non duty period. The gross service of the husband of the petitioner at the time of submission of application on 7.8.2003 for seeking premature retirement was 20 years, 8 months and 19 days. The non qualifying service of the husband of the petitioner was total 9 months, 23 days. Thus, his net qualifying service was 19 years, 10 months and 27 days, which is less than the period required for entitlement of pension, as per the Government instructions dated 7.6.1978, as he had not completed 20 years of qualifying service. On merits, respondents justified the order of dismissal from service and denial of the pension.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also carefully gone through the file.