JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. 

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of Annexure P-24 whereby a Committee of Officers has rejected his claim for counting dismissal period in the length of service.

2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police as Constable on 20.05.1970. He remained absent from duty during 06.08.1980 to 11.08.1980 as well as 19.08.1980 to 01.09.1980. The respondent initiated departmental inquiry wherein he was found guilty of absence from duty. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 01.04.1980 dismissed him from service. He filed civil suit which was decreed vide judgment dated 19.03.1983 passed by learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Patiala. The State further filed RSA No.3336 of 1985 assailing judgment of Lower Courts. This court vide order dated 20.08.1986 allowed aforesaid RSA. He filed CWP No.8747 of 1988 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 30.04.1988. He again preferred CWP No.18656 of 1991 before this Court which was dismissed in view of dismissal of earlier writ petition. He filed third CWP No.5909 of 1998 which was disposed of by Lok Adalat vide order dated 10.12.1999 with a direction to respondent to decide his mercy petition. The Home Department vide order dated 15.09.2000 rejected his mercy petition. He again filed mercy petition before Chief Minister which was allowed vide order dated 03.11.2003 passed by Principal Secretary, Home Affairs and Justice Department. The punishment of dismissal from service was reduced to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. While reinstating, the respondent observed that dismissal period shall be treated as dies non. He preferred appeal against order dated 05.11.2003 to the extent his dismissal period was treated as dies non. The said appeal was rejected by State Government. He preferred CWP No.18701 of 2009 before this Court seeking setting aside of order dated 03.11.2003 to the extent his absence period was treated as dies non. The said petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent to reconsider his representation and pass a speaking order within a period of three months. The respondent constituted a Committee to reconsider claim of the petitioner. The Committee by impugned order rejected his claim. The Committee formed an opinion that petitioner’s seven years’ service stood forfeited out of ten years' service at the time of order of dismissal from service. He cannot be granted benefit of dismissal period as given to Constable Sardool Singh.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that as per Rule 16.28 (2) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short ‘PPR’), the Reviewing Authority while setting aside of order of dismissal is required to state whether dismissal period can be treated as suspension or not. The said Authority is further required to state whether service previous to dismissal should count for pension or not. The respondent while setting aside order of dismissal did not consider his case in true spirit and wrongly declared dismissal period as dies non. The petitioner was not required to be treated as suspended and dismissal period was required to be counted for pension. He was dismissed from service for absence from duty. The respondent finally awarded him punishment of forfeiture of one increment with permanent effect. At the time of dismissal from service, he had already worked for 11 years. The order of punishment of forfeiture of one increment related back to date of dismissal from service. The petitioner is entitled to salary for the dismissal period. He at the most can be treated as suspended during the said period. The dismissal period is further required to be counted towards length of service.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner availed multiple remedies against dismissal from service order. This Court vide order dated 20.08.1986 passed in RSA No.3336 of 1985 upheld order of dismissal from service. He