JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. 

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders passed by Departmental Authorities whereby he was dismissed from service.

2. The petitioner joined Police Department on 04.02.1980. He was implicated in FIR No.142 dated 07.06.1994 registered under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Hansi. He faced trial and came to be convicted by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years besides fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. He preferred appeal which came to be dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. He preferred CRR No.482 of 2003 before this Court which came to be partially allowed vide order dated 18.04.2011. The judgment of conviction was upheld, however, sentence was reduced to that undergone. The petitioner underwent sentence of five months and five days. He was further subjected to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. The operative portion of order dated 18.04.2011 reads as:

“Learned counsel for the petitioners did not assail the finding of conviction so recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court. He confined his submissions to the sentence so imposed upon them. He submitted that the marriage of the complainant was performed about 17 years back and that the accused are standing their protracted trial from the last more then 15 years. All the dowry articles so given by the parents of the complainant were recovered by the investigating agency and were handed over to the complainant. He prayed that the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon the accused be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

As per the custody certificate placed on the record by the State counsel, the petitioners/accused have already undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of five months and five days. Keeping in view that they are standing their protracted trial from the last more then 15 years, the ends of justice will be met in case the sentence imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone provided they are directed to pay suitable compensation to the complainant, who suffered harassment and cruelty at their hands.

Accordingly. the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon the petitioners/accused is reduced to the period already undergone and they are directed to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation to the complainant. The fine, if already, deposited, shall he adjusted towards that amount and the same is to be paid/deposited in the trial Court within a period of three months of the passing of this order failing which the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.”

3. Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner submits that as per Rule 16.1 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (in short ‘PPR’), the respondent was duty bound to consider petitioner’s length of service as well as entitlement to pension. He was convicted in a matrimonial dispute which could not be considered as gravest misconduct. At the time of filing petition before this Court, his criminal revision was pending before this Court. The respondent was supposed to wait for the outcome of criminal revision. The Authorities did not examine nature of offence and quantum of punishment, however, mechanically dismissed him from service. He was entitled to pension.

4. Learned State counsel reiterates findings recorded by Departmental Authorities.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. The petitioner is claiming that he should be considered for pension in view of his length of service. The petitioner was entitled to pension as he had already completed 20 years’ service. The respondent did not consider said fact and passed impugned order of dismissal from service. The Authorities were duty bound to consider nature of offence and quantum of punishment besides petitioner’s entitlement to pension. Contention of petitioner