SHRI CHAMBA SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 788 · Decided: 09-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHRI CHAMBA SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
APRIL 9, 1997 
B 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
Punjab Police Rules, 1934/Pwzjab Civil Se1vices (Premature Retire-
ment) Rules, 1975-16.1(1), 16(5)12(3), 3(i)(a)-Premature retirement-Ser-
vice qualifying for pension-Fo1feiture of three years' service for 
C increment-Held : The employee's nght to receive increments alone was af-
fected-Hence no bearing on qualifying se1vice Jor compulso1y/premature 
retirement. 
D 
Sl11i Bhagat Ram v. Inspector General of Police Himachal Pradesh & 
Ors., (1979) 3 SLR 256, overruled. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1799-
1800 of 1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.89 of the Punjab & 
E 
Haryana High Court in C.Misc.P. No. 4626 of 1989 in R.A. No. 42 of 1989. 
F 
A.P. Mohanty and .litendra Singh for the Appellant. 
R.S. Sodhi, Kuldeep Singh and Anil Kr. Sharma for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
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 
G public interest. The order states that wherea5 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 
H being retired on payment of three months' salary on 2.9.1987. It seems that 
788 
-
CHAMilASINGH v. STATE 
789 
during his service, the appellant had been subjected to the punishment of A 
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 B 
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 C 
of increment under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and it> impact on the 
relevant provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) 
Rule, 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 D 
departmentally punished otherwise than as provided in these 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 E 
period for which the increment is withheld, and whether the 
postponement shall have the effect of postponing future incre-
ments. 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 tem-
porarily 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 
F 
forfeited. 
G 
(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 con-
H 
790 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 3 S.C.R. 
cerned has been given opportunity to show cause why his reinstate-
ment 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 con-
tained 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 le
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.