Regular Second Appeal No.2414 of 2007 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 09, 2010 Dilbagh Singh ...Appellant VERSUS The Punjab State through the Secretary, Home Department, Punjab, Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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? Present: Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.N.D.S.Mann, Addl.A.G.Punjab, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. While considering this case, court passed the following order on 29.1.2010:- “The appellant was dismissed from service in the Punjab Police on 13.8.1998. His appeal was also dismissed. The appellant had remained absent w.e.f. 4.11.1993 and thereafter from 17.11.1993 to 9.1.1994. For this absence, he was charge sheeted and after holding enquiry, order of dismissal was passed. To explain his absence, the Regular Second Appeal No.2414 of 2007 (O&M) : 2 : appellant had submitted a medical certificate regarding admission of his wife with a plea that there was no one else to look after his wife. He had also pleaded his own illness from 3.11.1993 to 8.11.1993. He accordingly impugned the order of his dismissal passed by S.S.P.Hoshiarpur being null & void and against the principle of natural justice. On the basis of evidence led, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. He failed in his appeal and that is how he has filed the present Regular Second Appeal. Initially, the appellant challenged the finding of the trial court as well as of the Ist Appellate Court on various grounds. However, no prayer for considering his case for grant of retiral benefits was made. On a prayer made by the appellant, however, he was permitted to amend the grounds of appeal, which were taken on record on 18.12.2008. On that day, it was also noticed on behalf of the appellant that he would not lay challenge to the termination of services, but would pray for considering his entitlement to retiral benefits under Rule 9.18 of the Punjab Police Rules (wrongly referred to in the order as Punjab Civil Services Rules) on the ground that he had 17 years qualified service. Notice of motion was issued limited to this question only. When this case came up for hearing, it was noticed that no relief for retiral benefits was either claimed and also the difficulty that will be so before the court to consider the claim for grant of retiral benefits if order of dismissal is to remain. When this is projected to the counsel for the appellant, he submits that intention was to make a statement to this effect that dismissal order was disproportionate to the gravity and nature of the allegations against the appellant and in this context prayer was made to consider his claim for retiral benefits after some interference in the order of punishment of Regular Second Appeal No.2414 of 2007 (O&M) : 3 : dismissal. It is not disputed before me that if the dismissal order of the appellant is to stand, his right to receive the retiral benefits or pension would be legally not tenable. In this view of the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant, it may require consideration whether the punishment awarded could be said to be harsh or disproportionate in any manner. Let the counsel address the court on this aspect only.” Counsel for the parties have been heard on the proportionality of the punishment. The State counsel points out that this is not the only instance when the appellant was absent. Rather, it is pointed out that he has remained absent on 24 earlier occasions for which he was punished with forfeiture of service as well. In this background, it would not be possible to view that the punishment awarded in this case is disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the offence alleged. There would hardly be any need even to send this case back on the ground that his service of 17 years was not taken into consideration. If this is the past conduct as is disclosed, there is no possibility of any change in view so far as the quantum of punishment is concerned. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. February 09, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE