Baljinder Singh v. Collector Patiala And ORS.
!
"#
$$ %!& '# ( !) * #!
$ ! "
#$%$&'
!
+
, ) -
!
$ +&.!) / *& 0
( "
! '# !"& !
$!!! $$ $ &". ! !
3 '!4 (&!) * 5#!01 $!!! !$ &". !
" ! &". (&!) !"& !
0 $!!!
& 1) & !
* ) 5#!01 7
!! $&1 6$!
/! * .!)
* 7
!! !- $ 6$!
/! * )
*
!!
.!1 $ !!
/! * ) *& 0) &$# "
" ) & - "
:& 0 !"
& ! ! ;
< = $!
&.
6 " 5!" 1 $! " # 'Santri'
$ < <
< 8> $ .
? "& "
."@ & "
5 'Santri'
$
A$ .$ $!. :&!1 ' "#) *) (.$ (..!)
& "& 1 -
#
A$ ) !$ $$! &
#!
5! .) !$ 4 $! .!1 0 # "!& & 0"
.0!! 0"
.0
.!) $ !$ !&. !! 5! 4$ 5# $"
6 $!. :&!1 5!"
" !$ 1 #5 & !
#!
-!. 5! toto. (:& 1) .1 - & 5! !. &"
& !
A . 1) & ! # -&!
!!
)
)
)
0"
" ) & -) !& ) 5!
! 0!- (&!) !$ $$!# (&!) "! "
""!-
) .) . 51 !"& !
&". &$!.
!"# $
% " "
&'(
&(
#
) * +"! :& 5 !:&! !. *& 0 B!1 B"# 5# &! !&.!0 $!-
*& 0 (&!
'# $! & .!
0 !- $! .!
?! & $$ -!& 1 the &! !
""
#!&"# $!- *& 0 * & )
9
#! D# & C) $ 1
5 -!& & # !"# 1 # $&#. !&! $$!- &#!@ $&#.
B5-!) 5!" 1 "
&!
'# 1 - $&#. !$ !&! $!!0 !&! $&!$ !.
'# !
1 .$ .! 1 0! $&#. $$" !. $!-
'#!!) . 5! E!&! !-F
!$! . G $$" !. '#!!) "
!"! 1 5!"
$!-! &! !.
$ !!!
5
' 0&! # !"&.) & $$
! &$ &". $G !! ,' - '
%%"
.!
- ' /0
12)
)2
+
. +
.
Per contra) learned State counsel submits that the impugned judgement and decree have been passed after correct appreciation of the evidence on record in accordance with the law and therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court.
<
B-"
#! & $! $!& $$!04 #!
0 ) !$! !) ) -
* ) # & santri $
"! 1 $ !
# $!. 1 $&#) G$ !
3&!#!) $!$!
& 5& !:&!
!&@) !$!& 5 "(1) The increment of a police officer on a timescale may be withheld as a punishment. The order must state definitely the period for which the increment is 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 subrule (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.''
* $!& 0-. !& $$ $ ) ) & #- 0 1 !&.
1 !&! $&!$ "! !.) 0!"
&!
5 0# &$!. ,' - '
) $4"
#!&"# 2& & %
#!) $ 5 "2.
...The effect, therefore, of the punishment of forfeiture of two years for the purpose of increments is that there is deferment of increment or increments over the forfeited period or there is reduction in pay. It does not have any impact on the length of service qualifying for pension which is the qualifying service to be taken into account for the purpose of compulsory retirement. It is contended by the appellant that since sub rule (3) of Rule 16.5 provides that on the expiry of the period fixed under subrule (1) or (2) of Rule 16.5, reinstatement is subject to good conduct and it is open to the department to pass a separate order not to reinstate an officer, there is a break in the service of the officer when an order is passed under subrule (1) or (2). 30 # , ( 4 -
! ( - 5 , - ( - - ( , 6- - ( - - - ( , , - ,5, 7# '2
- 0 - ( , - ( --( , 2( , 7 - ( '2 -- - ( 8 '2
)
'2
,(
'2
9
'2
-- 4 5 -
( - - ( , ( -- ,5 '
,5 , 7
'
:-5 ( - (,5; ,
, 3.
The appellant continued in service throughout this period. His right to receive increments alone was affected. <- - ==--
== (
!
'
(
-, :-5 ( - (,5 , # 0
4( - ( ( ,5
- (,5 , 3 0 '
0
0 -
5 , =--
= 5 # '
- ( '
(,5
7 -
! The appellant placed reliance upon a decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Shri Bhagat Ram v. Inspector General of Police, Himachal Pradesh and others, 1979(3) SLR 256. The judgment has proceeded on the assumption that forfeiture of service for the purpose of increment is equivalent to a reduction in the period of qualifying service. For reasons which we have already set out, this is not a correct
+ interpretation of the punishment of forfeiture of service for the purpose of increments."
.$#
& 0-) G$ $&#. .$ &$ $!!0
!" 1) &". ! !
3 '!4 (&!) * #!01 .$&" !!
)
)
! &#! 0"
! # $!$! ! "
.
6 ! 0 !"
& !
*"
. & $$ ) 1) # $
"" ,##!
$4"H! IHJ ,##!
!$!0 IHJ