MANOHAR LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(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 :

(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 :-