C.W.P No. 7242 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 7242 of 2008 Date of decision : March 10, 2009 Ramesh Chand, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Swapan Shorey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) On 2.5.2008 the following order was passed :- “ By filing this writ petition the petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 8.9.2004 (P/10), vide which, he was ordered to be dismissed from service. Further challenge is to the orders, dismissing his appeal and revision. We have gone through the contents of the orders passed and are satisfied that so far as dismissal is C.W.P No. 7242 of 2008 ::2:: concerned, there is no scope to interfere in the punishment awarded. The act of the petitioner, who was found under the influence of liquor, being incharge of the Police Station and not properly dressed, has rightly been found to be serious mis-conduct. Faced with the situation, Shri Kumar, Senior Advocate states that he does not press his challenge so far dismissal is concerned, however, by making reference to the contents of punishment order passed by the Superintendent of Police at Panchkula, wherein it is stated that if the delinquent officer wants to avail benefit of pension, he should move an application as per law, he states that the applications were in fact made, which have been placed on record as Annexure P/5 and P/6 but the same were not considered. Counsel further states that the petitioner has to his credit, before his dismissal, 30 years of service. This fact has not been taken note of when punishment order was passed. Notice of motion to that limited extent only for 12.8.2008.” The petitioner was dismissed after 34 years of service. As regards his entitlement to the pension, the disciplinary authority had directed him to file a separate application. It is not disputed that the applications (Annexures P-5 and P-6), filed by the petitioners, have not been taken note of or decided till today. Counsel for the petitioner states that at this stage he would be satisfied if respondent No.4 is directed to decide the said applications within C.W.P No. 7242 of 2008 ::3:: a fixed period of time. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 to pass a speaking order, in accordance with law, in respect of the applications, Annexures P-5 and P-6, within two weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 10, 2009. JUDGE `kk'