The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of dismissal of a police officer upon conviction and imprisonment, as prescribed in Rule 16.2(2) of the 1934 Rules.

Judgment

Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, J.

By this common order CWP-3009-2019 and CWP-3013-2019 are disposed of since issue involved in both the petitions and prayer sought are common. With the consent of parties and for the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from CWP-3013-2019.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of:-

i. Order dated 26.07.2013 (Annexure P-1) whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service;

ii. Order dated 26.04.2016 (Annexure P-2) whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed;

iii. Order dated 26.09.2016 (Annexure P-3), 30.05.2017 (Annexure P-4) and 31.07.2018 (Annexure P-5) whereby review petition have been dismissed by appellant/revisionary authorities.

3. The petitioner joined Punjab Police as Constable in 1989 and he was subsequently promoted as Head Constable. An FIR No.160 dated 29.10.2012, under Sections 21, 22, 61 and 85 of NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala came to be registered against various persons including petitioner. A Naka was laid down by Inspector Naresh Kumar, SHO Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala alongwith other police officials at Nawanpind Gatewala. The Police party noticed two cars and drivers of both the cars tried to escape, however, police party foiled their attempt. During search heroin was recovered from occupants of both the cars. Both the petitioners were arrested alongwith heroin. The police after completing investigation filed its report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioner alongwith others faced trial.

4. Learned Judge, Special Court, Kapurthala, vide judgment dated 19.02.2016 found both the petitioners herein guilty of commission of offence punishable under NDPS Act. Both were awarded sentence of imprisonment of 3 years. They did not file appeal before Appellate Court, thus, conviction awarded by the Trial Court became final. They have already undergone awarded sentence. The respondent on the basis of registration of FIR initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioners. Both the petitioners came to be dismissed from service and they unsuccessfully preferred appeal before Appellate Authority which was followed by revision/representation before higher authorities. The petitioners through instant petitions are assailing orders of dismissal.

5. Mr. K.G. Chaudhry, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent authority while passing order of dismissal was required to consider mandate of Rule 16.2 (1) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short ‘1934 Rules’). The Disciplinary Authority while dismissing the petitioners from service did not consider their length of service and entitlement to pension. They have been mechanically dismissed from service.

In support of his contention that Disciplinary Authority was duty bound to consider length of service of petitioners and their entitlement to pension, Mr. Choudhry relies upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court in SI Surinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others 2008 (4) SCT 72 as well as judgment of this Court in CWP No.8505 of 2018 titled as Surinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others.

He further submits that a Police Officer despite conviction cannot be deprived of his valuable right of pension. The petitioners were awarded sentence of 3 years and there are instances where respondent has released pension despite conviction of more than 3 years. To buttress his contention, he places reliance upon judgment of this Court in CWP No.14327 of 2018 titled as ‘Ajit Singh (deceased) through his L.R. Jasvir Kuar Versus Accountant General (A&E), Punjab and others’ and ‘Prem Chand Dhand Vs. State of Punjab and another’ 2019 (2) SCT 662. The respondent has further wrongly relied upon past record of the petitioners while passing order of dismissal from service.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioners were involved in a serious offence wherein allegation of leaking of secret information of the depa