He went to England without permission and failed to return after his leave expired; constable dismissed in 2008 now loses pension battle despite serving for 11 years
CHANDIGARH: “An employee cannot claim a right to remain absent from duty at his convenience and thereafter seek to neutralize the consequences of such conduct by relying upon the length of service rendered by him,” the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed while dismissing the pension plea of a former Punjab Police constable who had gone to the UK without informing the department.
Justice Namit Kumar dismissed the writ petition filed by Ex-Sepoy Dilawar Singh, who sought pensionary benefits on the ground that he had rendered 11 years and nine months of regular service before being dismissed in 2008.
“Unauthorized absence from duty, particularly by an employee holding a post where regular attendance and discipline are integral to the functioning of the establishment, constitutes serious misconduct. An employee cannot claim a right to remain absent from duty at his convenience and thereafter seek to neutralize the consequences of such conduct by relying upon the length of service rendered by him. Public service carries with it corresponding obligations of discipline, punctuality and obedience to lawful orders. Where an employee repeatedly disregards these obligations and the competent authority, after following due process, concludes that the misconduct warrants dismissal, no interference is warranted,” the Bench observed.
As per the matter, Singh was appointed as a constable in the Security Wing, Punjab, Chandigarh, on August 11, 1994. He proceeded on 45 days earned leave from February 19, 2007, to April 4, 2007, which was subsequently extended until August 2, 2007. However, he failed to resume duty thereafter and remained absent from August 3, 2007.
Following his continued absence, an absence report was recorded and he was placed under suspension. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him on December 7, 2007. Despite repeated notices, he did not join the inquiry proceedings, which were consequently conducted ex parte.
A show-cause notice dated June 9, 2008, proposing his dismissal from service was issued to him. However, he neither submitted a reply nor appeared before the punishing authority despite further opportunities. He was dismissed from service on August 11, 2008, with the period of absence treated as non-duty and the suspension period treated as suspension.
The State counsel, Additional Advocate General Punjab, Siddharth Sandhu, submitted before the HC that Singh had gone to England without informing the department and without obtaining ex-India leave. It also maintained that his defence concerning a head injury and memory loss appeared to be an afterthought, as no information or authentic medical record had been furnished to the department at the relevant time.
The petitioner’s counsel, Sukhjeet Kaur contended that Singh had rendered 11 years and nine months of regular service and was entitled to pensionary benefits. It was further argued that pension could not be denied merely because he had been dismissed from service.
Opposing the plea, the State counsel submitted that there was no provision under the rules for grant of pension to an employee dismissed from service.
The High Court referred to Rule 2.5 of Chapter II, Volume II, of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which provides that pension may not be granted to a government employee dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, though compassionate allowance may be granted in cases deserving special consideration.
The Bench further noted that Singh had remained silent for nearly six years and ten months before filing an appeal against his dismissal. It also recorded that he had failed to produce any medical treatment record in support of a medical certificate dated May 15, 2015.
Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed it.
Justice Namit Kumar dismissed the writ petition filed by Ex-Sepoy Dilawar Singh, who sought pensionary benefits on the ground that he had rendered 11 years and nine months of regular service before being dismissed in 2008.
“Unauthorized absence from duty, particularly by an employee holding a post where regular attendance and discipline are integral to the functioning of the establishment, constitutes serious misconduct. An employee cannot claim a right to remain absent from duty at his convenience and thereafter seek to neutralize the consequences of such conduct by relying upon the length of service rendered by him. Public service carries with it corresponding obligations of discipline, punctuality and obedience to lawful orders. Where an employee repeatedly disregards these obligations and the competent authority, after following due process, concludes that the misconduct warrants dismissal, no interference is warranted,” the Bench observed.
As per the matter, Singh was appointed as a constable in the Security Wing, Punjab, Chandigarh, on August 11, 1994. He proceeded on 45 days earned leave from February 19, 2007, to April 4, 2007, which was subsequently extended until August 2, 2007. However, he failed to resume duty thereafter and remained absent from August 3, 2007.
Following his continued absence, an absence report was recorded and he was placed under suspension. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him on December 7, 2007. Despite repeated notices, he did not join the inquiry proceedings, which were consequently conducted ex parte.
A show-cause notice dated June 9, 2008, proposing his dismissal from service was issued to him. However, he neither submitted a reply nor appeared before the punishing authority despite further opportunities. He was dismissed from service on August 11, 2008, with the period of absence treated as non-duty and the suspension period treated as suspension.
The State counsel, Additional Advocate General Punjab, Siddharth Sandhu, submitted before the HC that Singh had gone to England without informing the department and without obtaining ex-India leave. It also maintained that his defence concerning a head injury and memory loss appeared to be an afterthought, as no information or authentic medical record had been furnished to the department at the relevant time.
The petitioner’s counsel, Sukhjeet Kaur contended that Singh had rendered 11 years and nine months of regular service and was entitled to pensionary benefits. It was further argued that pension could not be denied merely because he had been dismissed from service.
Opposing the plea, the State counsel submitted that there was no provision under the rules for grant of pension to an employee dismissed from service.
The High Court referred to Rule 2.5 of Chapter II, Volume II, of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which provides that pension may not be granted to a government employee dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, though compassionate allowance may be granted in cases deserving special consideration.
The Bench further noted that Singh had remained silent for nearly six years and ten months before filing an appeal against his dismissal. It also recorded that he had failed to produce any medical treatment record in support of a medical certificate dated May 15, 2015.
Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed it.
Next Story