Shri Chamba
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors [1997] INSC 415 (9 April 1997)
SUJATA
V. MANOHAR, V.N. KHARE
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
O R D
E R 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.
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 those
Rules. Rule 16.5 provides as follows:
"(1)
The increment of a police officer on a time-scale may be withheld as a
punishment. The order must state definitely the period for which the increment
is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing
future increments.
The
detailed orders regarding the grant and stoppage of increments are contained in
rule 13.2.
(2)
Approved service for increment may be forfeited, either temporarily or
permanently, and such forfeiture may entail either the deferment of an
increment or increments or a reduction in pay.
The
order must state whether the forfeiture of approved service is to be permanent;
or, if not, the period for which it has been forfeited.
(3)
Reinstatement on the expiry of a period fixed under sub-rule (1) or (2) above,
shall be conditional upon good conduct in the interval.
but,
if it is desired under this rule not to reinstate an officer, a separate order
shall be recorded, after the officer concerned has been given opportunity to
show cause why his reinstatement should not be deferred, and the period for
which such order shall have effect, shall be stated. Rules regarding the method
of recording punishments under this rule in seniority rolls are contained in
Chapter X." 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. lt 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-Rule (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.
The
appellant continued in service throughout this period. His right to receive
increments alone was affected.
If the
period of "forfeited" service under. He 26.5 (2) is to be deducted
from qualifying service or 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 & Ors. (1979 (3) SLR 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.
The
appeals are, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to
costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
