Employee Rightly Dismissed From Service Is Not Entitled To Pension But Can Claim Compassionate Allowance Under Punjab Civil Service Rules: Punjab & Haryana HC

The High Court, vide common order, dismissed the petitions filed by two constables who were found guilty of commission of an offence punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and were awarded a sentence of imprisonment of three years. The Respondent initiated departmental proceedings and dismissed the Petitioners from service.

A bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal observed, “From the perusal of afore-cited judgment, it comes out that said judgment is based upon Rule 2.1 and 2.2 of Punjab Civil Services Rules. The said rules are applicable where conviction takes place after retirement. The case of the petitioners is not of conviction after retirement whereas it is case of conviction during service, thus, aforesaid rules are not applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner during his service was dismissed from service. An employee who is dismissed from service is not entitled to pension, though, he can claim compassionate allowance under Rule 2.5 of Punjab Civil Service Rules (Volume II). The petitioner as noticed in earlier paragraphs, was rightly dismissed from service, thus, he cannot be extended pension on the basis of Rule 2.1 and 2.2 of Punjab Civil Services Rules.”

Advocate K.G. Chaudhary appeared on behalf of the Petitioners and Deputy Advocate General Pawan Kumar appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

The Court held that it is always subject to judicial review to ascertain whether the officer is guilty of the gravest misconduct or not. The question of whether an officer is guilty of the cumulative effect of misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness is also a question of fact and has always remained the subject matter of judicial review.

The Court observed, “Sub-Rule (2) carves out an exception to Sub-Rule (1) and in a way it is a proviso to Sub-Rule (1) which leaves no discretion with authorities and enjoins that an officer shall be liable to be dismissed if he has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on a criminal charge….The officer may be guilty of an offence either committed in the discharge of duty or having no bearing with his official duties. In every case, where an officer is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on a criminal charge, he is liable to be dismissed. The proviso to said sub-rule is also important to be noticed. The proviso provides that if conviction is set aside in appeal or revision, the appointing authority shall review the case keeping in view the instructions issued by the Government.”

Accordingly, the Court did not find any infirmity in the impugned orders and, thus, dismissed the petitions.

Cause Title: Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. & Phuman Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:025705)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates K.G. Chaudhary and Sakshi Singh

Respondents: Deputy Advocate General Pawan Kumar