C.W.P. No. 7009 of 1989 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7009 of 1989 Date of Decision: Feb. 16, 2010 Labh Singh .................................... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P.Dabla, DAG, Punjab. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders Annexures P1, P2 and P3 whereby he was prematurely retired from service and his appeal and revision have also been dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed to reinstate him with all consequential benefits. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Punjab Police on 9.9.1957. It has been averred that during his service he worked honestly and earned about 15 good entries and that there was no confidential report which was adverse to the petitioner while he remained in service. It has further been averred that the petitioner was promoted in the year 1977 to the post of Head Constable and was allowed to cross the efficiency bar in the year 1978. The petitioner was also sent to Phillaur for C.W.P. No. 7009 of 1989 [ 2 ] inter-mediate course which he cleared in the year 1981-82. On the basis of the aforementioned facts, the petitioner submits that the order of premature retirement (Annexure P1) cannot be sustained and the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated and is also entitled to all consequential retiral benefits. In support of his case, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in Shri J.R.Jain v. Union of India and others 1973(2) SLR 309. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 wherein it has been averred that during the service tenure of the petitioner, his work and conduct was not satisfactory. The petitioner earned only 11 good entries whereas he has earned 14 bad entries. It has further been averred that on account of the conduct of the petitioner his two years approved service was forfeited for his willful absence from duty for 20 days. The petitioner remained absent from duty on six difference occasions and his period of absence was treated as `leave without pay'. The petitioner was also censured thrice for showing negligence in duty. It has also been averred that he earned adverse ACRs for the period from 1.4.1984 to 30.9.1984 and 1.10.1984 to 15.2.1985 which were conveyed to him vide letters dated 14.10.1984 and 2.4.1985. In reply to the aforementioned submissions made by the counsel for the respondents, learned counsel submits that the petitioner had in fact earned 15 good entries and not 11 as submitted by the counsel for the respondents. I have heard the counsel for the parties at length. A perusal of the track record of the petitioner shows that not only did the petitioner earn 14 bad entries but his two years service was also forfeited for having remained willfully absent from duty for 20 days. The C.W.P. No. 7009 of 1989 [ 3 ] petitioner was also found absent on six other occasions and the period of his absence was treated as `leave without pay'. The petitioner also earned adverse ACRs for the period as mentioned in the reply. In view of the service record of the petitioner, I find no illegality in the impugned orders (Annexures P1 to P3) vide which the petitioner was ordered to be retired prematurely and his appeal and revision were also dismissed by the SSP, Sangrur, and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala. Apart from the above, the petitioner was prematurely retired vide Annexure P1 on 31.3.1985 and more than 25 years have elapsed since the date of his premature retirement. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be reinstated in service because of lapse of time. No merit. Dismissed. 16.2.2010 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE