IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 05.02.2026 State of Punjab and others …..Appellants Versus Rashid Ahmad ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Mr. Surya Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab.

None for the respondent.

****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The appellants have filed the instant Regular Second Appeal against judgment and decree dated 02.04.1992, passed by learned Sub Judge III Class, Jalandhar, whereby the suit for declaration filed by the respondent has been decreed in his favour, as well as the judgment and decree dated 20.04.1995, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby an appeal filed by the appellants- State of Punjab against judgment and decree dated 02.04.1992, has been dismissed. Parties to the lis are being referred to as per their original position before the Trial Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff joined the service in the Punjab Police as Constable on 04.12.1981 as he was First Class Kabaddi player. In the month of March, 1986, the mother of the plaintiff fell seriously ill and there being no other male member in the family to look after her, the plaintiff was compelled to remain away from duty. Consequently, he was treated as absent from duty and was subjected to departmental proceedings. After holding a departmental inquiry, the plaintiff was issued a show cause notice and thereafter, vide order dated 17.04.1988, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar, the punishment of ‘forfeiture of his five years approved service’ was imposed upon him. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred a departmental appeal, which was rejected, vide order dated 01.12.1988, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar. Impugning the said orders, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, which was decreed by the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 02.04.1992, primarily on two grounds that the punishment imposed was not provided under the relevant rules and that the period of absence had been treated as leave without pay, thereby amounting to regularization of the said period. The said judgment and decree dated 02.04.1992 was challenged by the defendants-State of Punjab by filing an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.04.1995. Hence, the instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants-State by impugning the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.

3. Vide order dated 02.02.1996 passed by this Court, the instant appeal was admitted and the operation of the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below was stayed. Thereafter, the matter was heard by this Court on 17.09.2019 and was adjourned to 23.09.2019 to enable the parties to render necessary assistance to the Court, as to what does the expression ‘approved service’ as used in the Punjab Police Rules actually means. Pursuant to the said order, an additional affidavit dated 23.09.2019 was filed by Mr. Bimal Kant, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar, wherein it was stated as under :-

“xx xx xx xx xx

3. That it is respectfully submitted that though term "Approved Service" has been used in number of rules of Punjab Police Rules 1934 yet it has not been defined or described specifically anywhere in the said rules. However, it is generally understood that term "Approved Service" would mean service actually rendered by a police official excluding service which has been forfeited or would be forfeited in future. It also exclude the period of absence from duty, if any. It is worth mentioning that forfeited service is considered as qualifying service for the purpose of pension but absence period from duty is not considered as such. As mentioned in the impugned order, five years approved service of the respondent Constable Rashid Ahemad has been forfeited only for the purpose of future increments as