ORDER

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. A disciplinary enquiry was held against the respondent wherein the disciplinary authority imposed upon him the punishment which may best be set out in the words of the disciplinary authority himself.

"Accordingly, it is ordered that 3 years approved service of Constable Baldev Singh No. 54/CP is forfeited with permanent effect. His present pay which is Rs. 510 is reduced to Rs. 465. Order may be booked. Copy of this order be supplied to him free of costs."

4. An appeal preferred by the respondent against the said punishment was dismissed by the appellate authority. The respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench which has allowed his original application only on the ground that the punishment imposed upon him namely "forfeiture of 3 years approved service with permanent effect" is not within the terms of and is not warranted by Section 7 of the Police Act or the Rules made thereunder. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in saying so. Section 7 insofar as it is relevant and Rule 16.5 [of which sub-clause (2) is relevant herein] read thus :

7. Appointment, dismissal etc. of inferior officers. - Subject to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution, and to such rules as the State Government may from time to time make under this Act, the Inspector General, Deputy Inspector General, Assistant Inspector General, Superintendents of Police may at any time dismiss, suspend or reduce either in rank or within a time-scale any police officer of the subordinate ranks whom they shall think remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty or unfit for the same, or may award any one or more of the following punishments to any police officer of the subordinate ranks who shall discharge his duty in a careless or negligent manner, or who by any act of his own shall render himself unfit for the discharge thereof, namely....

16.5 (2) Approved service for increment may be forfeited, either temporarily or permanently, and such forfeiture may entail either the deferment of an increment or increments or a reduction in pay. The order must state whether the forfeiture of approved service is to be permanent; or if not, the period for which it has been forfeited."

5. The reading of the above provisions shows that the Act and the Rules contemplate imposition of punishment of forfeiture of approved service which may involve reduction either in rank or in time-scale. What is provided by Section 7 has been elucidated by the rule in particular, sub-clause (2) of Rule 16.5. We are also of the opinion that sub-clause (2) of Rule 16.5 cannot be said to have travelled beyond Section 7 and that the punishment awarded is in terms of the Rules. The Tribunal was not right in setting it aside on the ground it did. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.