R.S.A. No.2285 of 2000 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.2285 of 2000 Date of decision:02.07.2010. The State of Punjab and others ...Appellants Versus Sukhmandir Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab. Mr. S.C.Chhabra, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The learned Trial Court non-suited the plaintiff – respondent who had filed this suit to challenge his dismissal from service. The impugned dismissal came about on account of his unauthorized absence from duty. However, the finding came to be reversed by the learned First Appellate Court which recorded that though the validity of the inquiry could not be successfully assailed, the orders on point of punishment had to be invalidated as the provisions of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules had not been complied with inasmuch as the impugned order did not take into consideration the fact of length of service, the claim for pension and also his past record. Liberty was given to the appellants to afford opportunity of a hearing to the plaintiff – respondent and grant an order afresh in the matter of imposition of penalty. It is common ground presently that the appellants did not R.S.A. No.2285 of 2000 -2- *** proceed afresh against the plaintiff – respondent in the matter. The respondent has superannuated from service in the meantime. The learned State counsel is not in a position to indicate any factual inaccuracy in the finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court that the provisions of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules had not been complied with. In fact, the non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules is apparent from the impugned order itself which does not even purport to take notice of what ought to have gone into consideration in terms of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules in the grant of an order of the indicated category. The learned State counsel has not been able to invite the attention of this Court to any substantial question of law which arises for consideration by this Court. The well reasoned findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court deserve affirmation and it is so ordered accordingly. There being no substantial question of law for consideration, this Regular Second Appeal shall stand dismissed. Disposed of accordingly. July 02, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE