http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SHRI CHAMBA SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/04/1997

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The appellant  joined the Punjab Police Department as a constable on  March 30 1961. In 1961 he was promoted as Head Constable. He  was thereafter  promoted  as  Assistant  Sub- Inspector. He  was served  with  an  order  dated  September 2,1987  of  premature  retirement  from  service  in  public interest. The  order states  that whereas  the appellant has completed more  than 25  years  of  service  on  1.4.86  and whereas  on   consideration  of   his  case.  the  concerned authority is of the opinion that it is in public interest to retire the appellant from service therefore, in pursuance of Rule 3  (i)(a)  of  the  Punjab  Civil  Services  (Premature Retirement) Rules,  1975 he  is being  retired on payment of three months’  salary on  2.9.1987. It seems that during his service, the  appellant had been subjected to the punishment of forfeiture  of three  years’ service  for increment. This forfeiture was later reduced to two years of service for the purpose of  increment. The  appellant contends  that if  the forfeited service of two years is excluded from his service, he cannot  be said  to have  completed 25  years’ qualifying service on  2.9.1987  and  hence  the  order  of  compulsory retirement must be set aside.      Under the  Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975,  the expression  "qualifying service  has  been defined in  Rule 2(3)  of the  said Rules  to mean  "Service qualifying for pension". We have, therefore, to consider the effect of forfeiture of service for the purpose of increment under the  Punjab Police  Rules, 1934  and its impact on the relevant provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. The punishment which was imposed in this case on the appellant was under the Punjab Police Rules of 1934.  Rule 16.1(1)  of the  Punjab  Police  Rules,  1934 states  that  no  police  officer  shall  be  departmentally punished otherwise  than as  provided in  those Rules.  Rule 16.5 provides as follows:      "(1) The  increment   of  a  police      officer  on  a  time-scale  may  be      withheld as a punishment. The order      must state  definitely  the  period      for   which    the   increment   is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    withheld,    and     whether    the      postponement shall  have the effect      of  postponing  future  increments.      The detailed  orders regarding  the      grant and  stoppage  of  increments      are contained in rule 13.2.      (2)  Approved service for increment      may    be     forfeited,     either      temporarily  or   permanently,  and      such forfeiture  may entail  either      the deferment  of an  increment  or      increments or  a reduction  in pay.      The order  must state  whether  the      forfeiture of  approved service  is      to be  permanent; or,  if not,  the      period  for   which  it   has  been      forfeited.      (3)  Reinstatement on the expiry of      a period  fixed under  sub-rule (1)      or (2)  above, shall be conditional      upon good  conduct in the interval.      but, if  it is  desired under  this      rule not to reinstate an officer, a      separate order  shall be  recorded,      after  the  officer  concerned  has      been  given   opportunity  to  show      cause why  his reinstatement should      not be deferred, and the period for      which such order shall have effect,      shall be  stated.  Rules  regarding      the method of recording punishments      under this  rule in seniority rolls      are contained in Chapter X."      The effect,  therefore, of the punishment of forfeiture of two  years for the purpose of increments is that there is deferment of  increment or  increments  over  the  forfeited period or  there is  reduction in  pay. It does not have any impact on the length of service qualifying for pension which is the  qualifying service  to be taken into account for the purpose of  compulsory retirement.  lt is  contended by  the appellant that since Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 16.5 provides that on the expiry of the period fixed  under Sub-Rule (1) or (2) of Rule  16.5, reinstatement  is subject to good conduct and it is open to the department to pass a separate order not to reinstate an officer, there is a break in the service of the officer when  an order  is passed under Sub-Rule (1) or (2). However, reinstatement in the context of Rule 16.5 can refer only to  the resumption  of service for the purpose of grant of increments.  Forfeiture  of  service  for  the  grant  of increments does  not result  in termination  of  employment. Thus, Sub-Rule (1) provides for withholding of increments of a police  officer on  a time-scale as a punishment. There is no reference  in this sub-rule to forfeiture of service. Yet Sub-Rule (3)  applies to an order under Sub Rule (1) as much as to  an order  under Sub-Rule  (2). Under Sub-Rule (2) the forfeiture is  expressly of approved service for the purpose of  increments.   Such  forfeiture   may  be   temporary  or permanent. This  Rule has  no bearing  on qualifying service for compulsory/premature retirement.      The appellant  continued  in  service  throughout  this period. His  right to receive increments alone was affected. If the  period of  "forfeited" service under. He 26.5 (2) is to  be   deducted  from  qualifying  service  or  compulsory retirement, it would have the paradoxical result of granting longer  service   to  such   an  employee   for   compulsory

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

retirement.  He  would  have  to  be  allowed  to  work  for additional years to make up the ‘forfeited’ years. before he can be  compulsorily retired.  This is  not the intention of Rule 16.5.  The appellant placed reliance upon a decision of the Himachal  Pradesh High  Court in the case of Shri Bhagat Ram v.  Inspector General Of Police, Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (1979 (3)  SLR 256).  The  judgment  has  proceeded  on  the assumption that  forfeiture of  service for  the purpose  of increment is  equivalent to  a reduction  in the  period  of qualifying service.  For reasons  which we  have already set out, this  is not a correct interpretation of the punishment of forfeiture of service for the purpose of increments.      The appeals  are,  therefore,  dismissed.  There  will, however, be no order as to costs.