CWP No. 3465 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3465 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 05, 2009 Naresh Kumar ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.J.P. Sharma, 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? Ajay Tewari, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the police department on 30.9.1989. On 20.08.2004 he went absent. He joined back after 791 days on 19.10.2006. Thus, at that time he had about 14 years 10 months and 20 days' actual service to his credit. A regular inquiry was ordered wherein also the petitioner neither filed any written statement nor entered appearance. Thereafter show cause notice was issued to the petitioner but despite various notices he neither filed any reply nor availed of the opportunity of personal hearing. By order dated 17.12.2007 the petitioner was dismissed from service taking into account his absence for CWP No. 3465 of 2009 2 791 days and the fact that earlier on 29 different occasions he had remained absent for 689 days by holding as follows:- “Therefore, after viewing various facts and circumstances, detailed above, I am of the considered view that the defaulter has proved himself to be dead wood, who has no utility in the Police department and therefore he deserves to be weeded out of the force urgently. There seeks to be no cause of showing any sympathy or leniency towards him. Thus, I am not inclined to scale down the punishment proposed for him in the show cause notice and hereby order his dismissal from service with immediate effect. In my considered view, nothing short o this penalty can meet the ends of justice in this case.” I, however, find that with regard to the claim of the petitioner for pension the dismissal order noticed as follows:- “I have found that the defaulter was enlisted in police department on 30.9.1989 and so far he has rendered about 18 years and 3 months of service. He is, therefore, not eligible for pension at this stage. So, the provision of rule 16.2of the Punjab Police Rules, as stated above, and the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court cited above are not attracted to this case.” This is an obvious and apparent mistake because the entitlement for pension starts at 10 years' service. In the circumstances I set aside the impugned orders and direct respondent No.4 to pass a fresh order keeping in mind the fact that the entitlement for pension starts at 10 years. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a CWP No. 3465 of 2009 3 certified copy of this order. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner would not be entitled to reinstatement or any other benefit only on the strength of this order but the same would depend upon the fresh order which would be passed by the competent authority. The petition stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 05, 2009 sunita CWP No. 3465 of 2009 4