C.W.P. No. 5920 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5920 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 09.12.2010 Ex Constable Sandeep Singh No.2498/FBD ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana *** PERMOD KOHLI, J. The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable on 15.08.2001. He was served with a charge-sheet for remaining absence from duty from 16.4.2005 to 8.3.2006. The Inquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges who submitted its enquiry report to the punishing authority. Based upon the recommendation of the Inquiry officer, the punishing authority issued show cause notice dated 11.04.2006 (Annexure P-1) to the petitioner. The disciplinary/punishing authority on consideration of the matter and after hearing the petitioner, passed impugned order dated 03.05.2006 (Annexure P-2) dismissing the petitioner from service and the period of absence was also treated as dies-non. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon (Annexure P-3) against order of dismissal. The appellate authority vide order dated 04.08.2006 (Annexure P-4) rejected the appeal. The petitioner then filed revision before the Director General of Police, Haryana who rejected the same vide order dated 26.03.2007 (Annexure P-6). These orders are now under challenge in the present petition. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities while passing C.W.P. No. 5920 of 2007 -2- the order of dismissal have failed to consider rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules which inter alia obligates the punishing authority to give due regard to the length of the service of the delinquent and his claim to pension To support the contention, reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court titled as Dhan Singh v. State of Haryana and others reported as 2009 (1) RSJ 62. In the aforesaid case, the Division Bench of this Court set aside the order of punishment of dismissal and remitted the case back to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the question of punishment to be awarded to the petitioner keeping in view the service rendered by him i.e 11 years and 9 months and his right to pension. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 15.08.2001 and has been dismissed from service on 03.05.2006 just after 5 years of service. He had not attained requisite qualifying service for grant of pension as was the position in the case of Dhan Singh v. State of Haryana (supra). Another Division Bench of this Court in 2001 PLR 496 considered a similar issue of a Police Constable who is found guilty of taking liquor and absenting from duty. He was dismissed from service. It has been held that the high Court is not to act as Court of appeal. The act of the absence has been held to be an act of grave mis-conduct and the order of dismissal was upheld. Since the petitioner had not put in minimum qualifying service before his dismissal, condition envisaged under rule 16.2 is not available under law and no useful purpose would be served by remanding back on the analogy of judgment in Dhan Singh v. State of Haryana (supra) for reconsideration of the question of pension . For the above circumstances, there is no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. December 09, 2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) G.Arora JUDGE