IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.15505 of 2011 Date of Decision : August 24, 2011. Jagdev Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.D.K.Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner was a constable in the Punjab Police. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 6.1.2005 for having remained absent from duty for a number of years. The petitioner went abroad after taking ex-India leave for 180 days but did not return after the expiry of leave period. His appeal as well as revision petition were also dismissed by the competent authorities. The petitioner challenged those orders before this Court in CWP No.7519 of 2011 which was dismissed vide order dated 4.5.2011 after observing as follows- “....The only ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that punishment of dismissal is too harsh as the petitioner had rendered 26 years of service before he CWP No.15505 of 2011 [2] was granted Ex-India leave. It is settled law that the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as a Court of appeal. No legal infirmity has been pointed out in the passing of the impugned orders. From the conclusion of the orders pass, it appears that the petitioner remained absent for a number of years without seeking leave from the competent authority and remained abroad where he must be having some source of income. The petitioner also remained abroad at the costs of the government service. It is not a fit case to warrant inference in any manner.....” The petitioner in this second round of litigation pleads that notwithstanding his dismissal from service, he is entitled to the grant of pension under Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short 'the Rules') which reads as follows: “Rule 16.2. Dismissal: - (1) Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension. (2) If the conduct of an enrolled police officer leads to his conviction on a criminal charge and he is sentenced to imprisonment, he shall be dismissed. Provided that a punishing authority may, in an exceptional case involving manifestly extenuating circumstances for reasons to be recorded and with the prior approval of the next higher authority, impose any CWP No.15505 of 2011 [3] punishment other than that of dismissal....” (emphasis applied) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any ground to grant the desired relief. In my considered view, the petitioner's claim is not only misconceived, it is founded upon mis- interpretation of Rule 16.2 of the Rules (ibid). It is crystal clear from sub- Rule (1) that the length of service and 'claim of pension' of a delinquent police official are required to be kept in view by the disciplinary authority at the time of awarding the punishment of 'dismissal' from service. In other words, the disciplinary authority is expected to keep in view the length of service as a restraint on the dismissal from service even if it is a case of grave misconduct. The said consideration has already taken place in the petitioner's case when he was dismissed from service. Dismissed. August 24, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE