Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Rajinder Kumar on 6 October, 2010
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Rajan Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
L.P.A. No.1077 of 2010
DATE OF DECISION: October 06, 2010
State of Haryana and another
.....Appellants
versus
Rajinder Kumar
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr.Rameshwar Malik, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana for the appellants
Mr.R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent
..
RANJAN GOGOI, J.: (Oral)
Heard.
The challenge in the writ petition, out of which this appeal has arisen, was against the order dated 14.11.2009 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on the respondent-writ petitioner. The aforesaid order was passed after taking into account the previous incidents of absence from duty and the fact that respondent-writ petitioner is not entitled to pension as he does not have the required period of 20 years of qualifying service.
A contention was advanced before the learned single Judge that the writ petitioner had more than 10 years service to his credit which entitles him to pension. Reliance was placed on a decision of this court in Dhan Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009(1) RSJ 62 L.P.A. No.1077 of 2010 - 2 - wherein the case of the petitioner was remanded to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration as to the punishment to be imposed after taking into account the fact that 11 years of service rendered by the petitioner in that case entitled him to pension. The applicability of the decision in Dhan Singh's case (supra) was not disputed on behalf of the appellant-State before the learned single Judge and from that standpoint, the directions under challenge in the present appeal appear to be with the consent of the appellant-State.
The remand of the matter to the appellant-State as made by the learned single Judge would require the State to consider whether the service rendered by the petitioner entitles him to pension and if so, whether despite the said facts the punishment of dismissal would be justified. In view of the nature of the directions issued by the learned single Judge and further as the same have been so issued with the consent of the appellant-State, we are of the view that present is not a fit case for admission. No prejudice has been caused to the State by the directions issued by the learned single Judge.
LPA, therefore, is rejected by refusing admission.
( RANJAN GOGOI )
JUDGE
October 06, 2010 ( RAJAN
GUPTA )
pc JUDGE
2