IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.6214 of 1988 Date of decision: 3.8.2010 Smt. Pushpa Devi. -----Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL Present:- Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order, Annexure P-6, imposing punishment of forfeiture of past service of about eight years for proved misconduct of absence from duty for three years. 2. Case of the petitioner (since deceased) is that he was employed as Sectional Officer in the Municipal Committee since 1974. In April, 1982, he had to take leave on health grounds and he joined after recovering from illness after three years. He was not allowed to join in the first instance, but later he was allowed to join without prejudice to departmental inquiry initiated against him for absence from duty. The inquiry was conducted and Inquiry Report dated 7.1.1987 was submitted, holding the charges to be proved. On the basis thereof, impugned order dated 14.7.1987 CWP No.6214 of 1988 was passed, forfeiting past service. Appeal against the said order was dismissed, against which this petition was filed. 3. Contention raised in the petition is that Note 4 below 8.137 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.1 Part 1, relied upon in the impugned order was not applicable to the petitioner, as the petitioner did not take any extraordinary leave nor he was a temporary employee. It was also pointed out that under Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short, “the Rules”), penalties have been specified and forfeiture of past service is not one of the punishments. 4. In the reply filed on behalf of the State, the petition has been opposed by submitting that leave application of the petitioner w.e.f. 19.5.1982 was duly rejected and thus, the petitioner remained absent from duty for three years and the charge of absence from duty for a period of three years was duly established in the departmental inquiry and thus, the impugned order was justified. Punishment of forfeiture of past service was lesser punishment than the punishments provided under the Rules. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. None appears for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of penalties provided under the rules, the punishment imposed is illegal. 2 CWP No.6214 of 1988 8. The contention raised cannot be accepted. No doubt the penalties provided under Rule 5 of the Rules, do not contain punishment of forfeiture of past service. However, other higher punishments including reduction in time scale, retirement or removal, which may be more serious than the penalty of forfeiture of past service are provided for. In absence of any irregularity in enquiry and finding of misconduct of unauthorised absence from service for three years, punishment cannot be quashed on the ground raised. The matter could be remanded back to the disciplinary authority for passing a fresh order but having regard to the fact that the petitioner has died and period of 22 years has lapsed, no useful purpose will be served by requiring the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order. The punishment imposed has not been otherwise shown to be excessive. 9. In view of above, the relief sought in the petition cannot be granted. The petition is dismissed. August 03, 2010 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ashwani JUDGE 3