CWP No.3786 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3786 of 2009 Decided on : 09.03.2009 Ex-Constable Krishan Kumar No.173 ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY TEWARI J. Notice of motion. Sh. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State. Copy supplied. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither the punishing authority nor the appellate authority and revisional authority have considered the entitlement of the petitioner for pension at the time when the order of punishment was passed. It is to be noticed that the punishing order was passed against the petitioner recorded as follows:- “The defaulter is habitual absentee. I have perused his previous service record. He was recruited as Constable on 7.12.1988 and till today he was awarded four times major punishment for his absence from duty as under:- (1) Awarded punishment of stoppage of five future CWP No.3786 of 2009 -2- annual increments with permanent effect vide OB No.270/93 by SP/Rohtak. (2) Awarded punishment of stoppage of three increments by SP/Karnal vide OB No.452/95. (3) Awarded punishment of stoppage of four increments with permanent effect by SP/Karnal vide OB No.474/95. (4) Awarded punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect by SP/Karnal vide OB No.259/97. As present he is also absent from duty. All this shows that he is habitual absentee and his continued misconduct proved incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service, hence, the misconduct committed by him attracts the punishment of dismissal from service.” However, it is correct that the entitlement of the petitioner for pension was not considered specifically. In the circumstances in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if order (Annexure P-7) is set aside and the direction is given to respondent No.1 to reconsider the matter keeping in view the claim of the petitioner for entitlement to pension within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is clarified that the respondent No.1 would not be permitted to reject the mercy petition only on the ground that there is no statutory remedy providing for the same. March 09, 2009 ( AJAY TEWARI ) ashish JUDGE