Dismissal of a police officer must consider length of service and pension rights, as mandated by Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of;

(i) order dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure P-4) whereby husband of the petitioner was dismissed from service;

(ii) order dated 30.12.2014 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 26.02.2019 (Annexure P-7) whereby appeal and revision filed by the husband of the petitioner was dismissed

2. Balbir Singh-husband of the petitioner joined Punjab Police on 17.02.1988 as Constable. An FIR No.14 dated 06.02.2007 under Section 336, 188 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Jhuneer, District Mansa was registered against the husband of the petitioner. The said FIR was registered on account of political rivalry. These circumstances led the said employee to remain absent from duty. The said employee remained absent from duty from 04.07.2009 to 04.02.2010. On account of absence from duty for 215 days, the respondent-department initiated an inquiry against him. The Inquiry Officer in its report found him guilty of absence from duty. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa vide order dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure P-4) ordered to dismiss the said employee from service. He preferred appeal against the dismissal order which came up for consideration before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, who vide order dated 30.12.2014 (Annexure P-6) dismissed his appeal. He further unsuccessfully preferred revision before the competent authority. The husband of the petitioner passed away on 03.07.2019.

3. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate submits that respondent-department initiated proceedings against husband of the petitioner alleging absence from duty for 215 days and he was dismissed considering his past record. The inquiry proceedings were conduced ex-parte and order of dismissal was also passed ex-parte. The deceased employee was distressed on account of his false implication in the FIR, thus, he could not even present his defence in the departmental proceedings. The respondent-department has power to dismiss an employee in terms of Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short 1934 Rules'), however, power can be exercised subject to circumstances and conditions enumerated therein. The husband of the petitioner remained in service for 19 years and respondent-department without considering length of service as well as his entitlement to pension, has passed the impugned order of dismissal from service.

4. Per contra, Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned State counsel submits that husband of the petitioner is habitual offender. On several occasions, the petitioner remained absent from duty and he was subjected to punishments. The disciplinary authority considering past record of the deceased employee came to a conclusion that he deserves to be dismissed from service.

5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for both sides and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. The husband of the petitioner was dismissed from service in terms of Rule 16.2 of 1934 Rules, thus, it inevitable to look at said Rules, which is reproduced as below:-

"16.2. Dismissal. - (1) Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension.

(2) If the conduct of an enrolled police officer leads to his conviction on a criminal charge and he is sentenced to imprisonment, he shall be dismissed :

Provided that a punishing authority may, in an exceptional case involving manifestly extenuating circumstances for reasons to be recorded and with the prior approval of the next higher authority impose any punishment other than that of dismissal:

Provided further that in case the conviction of an enrolled police officer is set aside in appeal or revision, the officer empowered to appoint hi