RSA No.3244 of 1999 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 111 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. Vs Vs Vs Vs DINESH KUMAR DINESH KUMAR DINESH KUMAR DINESH KUMAR CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. Arun Jindal, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the appellant Mr. Prabhjayot Singh Chahal, Advocate and Mr. K.S. Rawat, Advocate for the respondent. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) The the respondent-plaintiff setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their Suit. [1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 04.03.1999 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala(hereinafter to be referred as the filed at the instance of respondent 30.04.1997 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Patiala(hereinafter to be referred as the declaration filed by the respondent the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court; consequently the suit for declaration preferred at the instance of the appellant RSA No.3244 of 1999 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. RSA No. RSA No. RSA No.3244 3244 3244 3244 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. DINESH KUMAR DINESH KUMAR DINESH KUMAR DINESH KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Arun Jindal, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the appellants. Mr. Prabhjayot Singh Chahal, Advocate and Mr. K.S. Rawat, Advocate for the respondent. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) The appellant-State is in appeal before this Court plaintiff was accepted by the lea setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 04.03.1999 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, (hereinafter to be referred as the““““First Appellate Court First Appellate Court First Appellate Court First Appellate Court filed at the instance of respondent-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1997 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) (hereinafter to be referred as the ““““Trial Court Trial Court Trial Court Trial Court ration filed by the respondent-plaintiff, was accepted; thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court; consequently the suit for declaration preferred at the instance of the appellant IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 3244 3244 3244 3244 of of of of 199 199 199 1999999 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: 08 08 08 08.0.0.0.07777.202 .202 .202 .2026666 ...... ...... ...... ......Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellantssss ....Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent((((ssss)))) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJAAAA Mr. Arun Jindal, Addl. A.G., Punjab Mr. Prabhjayot Singh Chahal, Advocate and before this Court. First appeal filed by by the learned First Appellate Court thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status in the Civil By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 04.03.1999 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, First Appellate Court First Appellate Court First Appellate Court First Appellate Court””””), whereby an appeal plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1997 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Trial Court Trial Court Trial Court Trial Court””””)))) dismissing the suit for plaintiff, was accepted; thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court; consequently the suit for declaration preferred at the instance of the appellant-plaintiff was decreed. 1 . First appeal filed by rned First Appellate Court thereby For the status in the Civil By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 04.03.1999 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, eby an appeal plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1997 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissing the suit for plaintiff, was accepted; thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court; consequently the suit MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.15 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.3244 of 1999 (O&M) [2]. Briefly s respondent-plaintiff, a departmental inquiry was initiated, on the basis of which two years of service of the respondent order dated 16.06.1996 passed by the As Patiala. An appeal preferred against the said order, was also dismissed vide order dated 14.11.1993 passed by the Inspector General of Police, GRP, Patiala. It was pleaded that both the aforementioned violation of the prescribed procedure of law. [3]. Upon notice, respondents/defendant(s) appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit and jurisdiction. It was pleaded that inquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules and regulation contained in Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and the order of forfeiture of two years’ service with permanent effect was rightly passed. filed by the respondent [4]. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues: “1. 2. 3. 4. 5. [5]. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment 30.04.1997, dismissed [6]. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated RSA No.3244 of 1999 (O&M) Briefly stating, on account of complaint received against the plaintiff, a departmental inquiry was initiated, on the basis of which two years of service of the respondent-plaintiff was ordered to be forfeited vide order dated 16.06.1996 passed by the Assistant Inspector General of Police/GRP, Patiala. An appeal preferred against the said order, was also dismissed vide order dated 14.11.1993 passed by the Inspector General of Police, GRP, Patiala. It was pleaded that both the aforementioned orders violation of the prescribed procedure of law. Hence, the suit was filed. Upon notice, respondents/defendant(s) appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit and jurisdiction. It was pleaded that inquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules and regulation contained in Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and the order of forfeiture of two years’ service with permanent effect was rightly passed. the respondent-plaintiff, reiterating the averments made in the plaint. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPD. Whether the suit of is not maintainable? OPD. Whether the Civil Court at Patiala has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD. Whether the notice u/s 80 CPC is not legal and valid? OPD Relief.” The learned Trial Court vide its judgment 30.04.1997, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated tating, on account of complaint received against the plaintiff, a departmental inquiry was initiated, on the basis of which plaintiff was ordered to be forfeited vide sistant Inspector General of Police/GRP, Patiala. An appeal preferred against the said order, was also dismissed vide order dated 14.11.1993 passed by the Inspector General of Police, GRP, Patiala. It was orders were non-speaking and passed in Hence, the suit was filed. Upon notice, respondents/defendant(s) appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit and jurisdiction. It was pleaded that inquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules and regulation contained in Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and the order of forfeiture of two years’ service with permanent effect was rightly passed. Replication was plaintiff, reiterating the averments made in the plaint. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? ther the suit of is not maintainable? OPD. Whether the Civil Court at Patiala has no jurisdiction to try the Whether the notice u/s 80 CPC is not legal and valid? OPD The learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated Aggrieved thereof, the respondent-plaintiff filed the first appeal, which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 04.03.1999 passed by the 2 tating, on account of complaint received against the plaintiff, a departmental inquiry was initiated, on the basis of which plaintiff was ordered to be forfeited vide sistant Inspector General of Police/GRP, Patiala. An appeal preferred against the said order, was also dismissed vide order dated 14.11.1993 passed by the Inspector General of Police, GRP, Patiala. It was and passed in Upon notice, respondents/defendant(s) appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit and jurisdiction. It was pleaded that inquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules and regulation contained in Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and the order of forfeiture Replication was On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? Whether the Civil Court at Patiala has no jurisdiction to try the and decree dated plaintiff filed the first appeal, passed by the MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.15 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.3244 of 1999 (O&M) learned First Appellate Court and consequently, the suit the instance of the respondent present Regular Second Appeal. [7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book and records of the case as well. [8]. A perusal of the record shows that i was received against the respondent his wife for having misbehaved with them. Upon the said complaint, Inspector General of Police, GRP, Patiala was appointed as the conduct the inquiry in respect of the incident. issued chargesheet (Ex.P followed by Inquiry Report (Ex.P indicted and was found guilty of charges levelled against him. On the basis of the Inquiry Report, a show cause notice (Ex.P due consideration of respondent-plaintiff on 16.03.1993 by the AIG(GRP), Patiala whereby penalty of forfeiture of two years’ service with permanent effect was ordered against the respondent-plaintiff. which was dismissed vide order dated 14.11.1993 (Ex.P Inspector General of Police, GRP, Patiala. Thereafter, the suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the respondent aforementioned two orders; further, for issuing of directions to the appellants to release the benefits attached to the post of the respondent interest. [9]. In the present facts and circumstances, it i complaint against the respondent RSA No.3244 of 1999 (O&M) learned First Appellate Court and consequently, the suit the instance of the respondent-plaintiff was decreed in his favour. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book and records of the case as well. A perusal of the record shows that i was received against the respondent-plaintiff at the hands of one Army Jawan and his wife for having misbehaved with them. Upon the said complaint, Inspector General of Police, GRP, Patiala was appointed as the conduct the inquiry in respect of the incident. Further, the respondent issued chargesheet (Ex.P-17) alongwith the copy of the list of witnesses(Ex.P followed by Inquiry Report (Ex.P-28) wherein the respondent indicted and was found guilty of charges levelled against him. On the basis of the Inquiry Report, a show cause notice (Ex.P-15) was served upon him and only ion of his reply, the order of punishment was passed against the plaintiff on 16.03.1993 by the AIG(GRP), Patiala whereby penalty of forfeiture of two years’ service with permanent effect was ordered against the plaintiff. Being aggrieved, a statutory appeal was filed at his instance which was dismissed vide order dated 14.11.1993 (Ex.P Inspector General of Police, GRP, Patiala. Thereafter, the suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the respondent-plaintiff aforementioned two orders; further, for issuing of directions to the appellants to release the benefits attached to the post of the respondent In the present facts and circumstances, it i complaint against the respondent-plaintiff was made with the allegations of he learned First Appellate Court and consequently, the suit for declaration preferred at plaintiff was decreed in his favour. Hence, the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the A perusal of the record shows that in the present case, a complaint plaintiff at the hands of one Army Jawan and his wife for having misbehaved with them. Upon the said complaint, Assistant Inspector General of Police, GRP, Patiala was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to Further, the respondent-plaintiff was 17) alongwith the copy of the list of witnesses(Ex.P-18), 28) wherein the respondent-plaintiff was indicted and was found guilty of charges levelled against him. On the basis of the 15) was served upon him and only upon his reply, the order of punishment was passed against the plaintiff on 16.03.1993 by the AIG(GRP), Patiala whereby penalty of forfeiture of two years’ service with permanent effect was ordered against the eved, a statutory appeal was filed at his instance which was dismissed vide order dated 14.11.1993 (Ex.P-46) passed by the Inspector General of Police, GRP, Patiala. Thereafter, the suit for declaration was plaintiff, assailing the validity of the aforementioned two orders; further, for issuing of directions to the appellants to release the benefits attached to the post of the respondent-plaintiff along with In the present facts and circumstances, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff was made with the allegations of he 3 for declaration preferred at plaintiff was decreed in his favour. Hence, the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the a complaint plaintiff at the hands of one Army Jawan and Assistant fficer to plaintiff was 18), plaintiff was indicted and was found guilty of charges levelled against him. On the basis of the upon his reply, the order of punishment was passed against the plaintiff on 16.03.1993 by the AIG(GRP), Patiala whereby penalty of forfeiture of two years’ service with permanent effect was ordered against the eved, a statutory appeal was filed at his instance 46) passed by the Inspector General of Police, GRP, Patiala. Thereafter, the suit for declaration was validity of the aforementioned two orders; further, for issuing of directions to the appellants to plaintiff along with s not in dispute that the plaintiff was made with the allegations of he MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.15 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.3244 of 1999 (O&M) having committed criminal offence in connection with his official relations with the public. Thus, in regard to the same, the procedure laid down under 16.38(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 Volume II, was required to be followed. The said provision makes the prior approval and decision of the District Magistrate a mandatory precondition before proceeding with the investigation of a complaint indicating the commission of a with his official dealings with the public reference: ““““16.38. 16.38. 16.38. 16.38. Courts Courts Courts Courts given to the District Magistrate of any complaint received by the Superintendent of Police, which indicates the commission by a police officer of a criminal offence in connection with his official relations with the public. The District Magistrate will decide whether the investigation of the complaint shall be conducted by a police officer, or made over to a selected ¹[Executive Magistrate] Admittedly, no such procedure was followed by the appellants defendants while proceeding against the respondent circumstances, the punishment order dated 16.03.1993(Ex.P Assistant Inspector General of Police, GRP, Patiala as well as the order dated 14.11.1993 (Ex.P rightly declare as [10]. Further, a sub-rule (2) of Rule 16.5 of the Punjab Poli the only penalties contemplated therein are stoppage of increments or forfeiture of approved service for the purpose of increments alone. The Rules do not envisage RSA No.3244 of 1999 (O&M) having committed criminal offence in connection with his official relations with the public. Thus, in regard to the same, the procedure laid down under 16.38(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 Volume II, was required to be followed. provision makes the prior approval and decision of the District Magistrate a mandatory precondition before proceeding with the investigation of a complaint dicating the commission of a criminal offence by a police officer in connection with his official dealings with the public. The same is reproduced hereunder for 16.38. 16.38. 16.38. 16.38. Criminal offences by police officers and strictures by Criminal offences by police officers and strictures by Criminal offences by police officers and strictures by Criminal offences by police officers and strictures by Courts Courts Courts Courts ---- Procedure Procedure Procedure Procedure regarding regarding regarding regarding.- (1) Immediate information shall be given to the District Magistrate of any complaint received by the Superintendent of Police, which indicates the commission by a police officer of a criminal offence in connection with his official relations th the public. The District Magistrate will decide whether the investigation of the complaint shall be conducted by a police officer, or made over to a selected ¹[Executive Magistrate] Admittedly, no such procedure was followed by the appellants nts while proceeding against the respondent circumstances, the punishment order dated 16.03.1993(Ex.P Assistant Inspector General of Police, GRP, Patiala as well as the order dated 14.11.1993 (Ex.P-46) passed by the Inspector General of Police, GRP, Patiala were as unsustainable in law by the learned First Appellate Court Further, a plain reading of Entry No. 3 of sub rule (2) of Rule 16.5 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 makes it manifest that the only penalties contemplated therein are stoppage of increments or forfeiture of approved service for the purpose of increments alone. The Rules do not envisage having committed criminal offence in connection with his official relations with the public. Thus, in regard to the same, the procedure laid down under Rule 16.38(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 Volume II, was required to be followed. provision makes the prior approval and decision of the District Magistrate a mandatory precondition before proceeding with the investigation of a complaint offence by a police officer in connection . The same is reproduced hereunder for Criminal offences by police officers and strictures by Criminal offences by police officers and strictures by Criminal offences by police officers and strictures by Criminal offences by police officers and strictures by (1) Immediate information shall be given to the District Magistrate of any complaint received by the Superintendent of Police, which indicates the commission by a police officer of a criminal offence in connection with his official relations th the public. The District Magistrate will decide whether the investigation of the complaint shall be conducted by a police officer, or made over to a selected ¹[Executive Magistrate]” Admittedly, no such procedure was followed by the appellants nts while proceeding against the respondent-plaintiff and in such circumstances, the punishment order dated 16.03.1993(Ex.P-6) passed by the Assistant Inspector General of Police, GRP, Patiala as well as the order dated nspector General of Police, GRP, Patiala were by the learned First Appellate Court. plain reading of Entry No. 3 of sub-rule (2) of Rule 16.1 and ce Rules, 1934 makes it manifest that the only penalties contemplated therein are stoppage of increments or forfeiture of approved service for the purpose of increments alone. The Rules do not envisage 4 having committed criminal offence in connection with his official relations with Rule 16.38(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 Volume II, was required to be followed. provision makes the prior approval and decision of the District Magistrate a mandatory precondition before proceeding with the investigation of a complaint offence by a police officer in connection . The same is reproduced hereunder for Criminal offences by police officers and strictures by Criminal offences by police officers and strictures by Criminal offences by police officers and strictures by Criminal offences by police officers and strictures by (1) Immediate information shall be given to the District Magistrate of any complaint received by the Superintendent of Police, which indicates the commission by a police officer of a criminal offence in connection with his official relations th the public. The District Magistrate will decide whether the investigation of the complaint shall be conducted by a police officer, Admittedly, no such procedure was followed by the appellants- plaintiff and in such 6) passed by the Assistant Inspector General of Police, GRP, Patiala as well as the order dated nspector General of Police, GRP, Patiala were rule (2) of Rule 16.1 and ce Rules, 1934 makes it manifest that the only penalties contemplated therein are stoppage of increments or forfeiture of approved service for the purpose of increments alone. The Rules do not envisage MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.15 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.3244 of 1999 (O&M) forfeiture of approved service with permanent effect. placed on the case of 671 671 671 671””””. . . . Relevant paragraph of the same is reproduced hereunder: “4. through the rules on the point, the appeal. Rule 16.2. of the Punjab Police Rules specifies certain kinds of punishments to be inflicted but nowhere lays do approved service of a police personnel with permanent effect can be forfeited. The defendants cannot take advantage from column No. 3 of Rule 16.2 of the rules wherein punishment of stoppage of increment or forfeiture of approved service for increm punishment of stoppage of increment or forfeiture of approved service for increment cannot be interpreted to mean that the approved service of a police official with permanent effect can be forfeited. Approved service for incremen a period of three years with permanent effect affecting the rights of a police constable for the purposes of gratuity, pension and seniority. The underlying object in not vesting the authorities, under th mentioned provisions, with powers to forfeit approved service with permanent effect appears to be that an official should not suffer for all times to come in the matter of gratuity, pension and seniority, otherwise, there was no difficulty in makin somewhat similar circumstances Delhi High Court in Union of India and others, 1984(3) SLR 756 of the authorities by which the approved service of a police official for one year permanently entail [11]. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or perversity with the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court rules and regulations out towards the pleadings and the evidence available on record; the present appeal, RSA No.3244 of 1999 (O&M) forfeiture of approved service with permanent effect. placed on the case of Punjab State v. Joginder Singh Punjab State v. Joginder Singh Punjab State v. Joginder Singh Punjab State v. Joginder Singh Relevant paragraph of the same is reproduced hereunder: After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the findings recorded by the courts below and the relevant rules on the point, this Court is of the firm view that the appeal. Rule 16.2. of the Punjab Police Rules specifies certain kinds of punishments to be inflicted but nowhere lays do approved service of a police personnel with permanent effect can be forfeited. The defendants cannot take advantage from column No. 3 of Rule 16.2 of the rules wherein punishment of stoppage of increment or forfeiture of approved service for increm punishment of stoppage of increment or forfeiture of approved service for increment cannot be interpreted to mean that the approved service of a police official with permanent effect can be forfeited. Approved service for increment can be forfeited but not the approved service for a period of three years with permanent effect affecting the rights of a police constable for the purposes of gratuity, pension and seniority. The underlying object in not vesting the authorities, under th mentioned provisions, with powers to forfeit approved service with permanent effect appears to be that an official should not suffer for all times to come in the matter of gratuity, pension and seniority, otherwise, there was no difficulty in makin somewhat similar circumstances Delhi High Court in Union of India and others, 1984(3) SLR 756 of the authorities by which the approved service of a police official for one year permanently entailing reduction in pay was forfeited. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or perversity with the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court rules and regulations, there being no ignorance or any mi out towards the pleadings and the evidence available on record; the present appeal, forfeiture of approved service with permanent effect. In this regard, reliance is Punjab State v. Joginder Singh Punjab State v. Joginder Singh Punjab State v. Joginder Singh Punjab State v. Joginder Singh reported as “1992 (3) SCT 1992 (3) SCT 1992 (3) SCT 1992 (3) SCT Relevant paragraph of the same is reproduced hereunder: After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going findings recorded by the courts below and the relevant this Court is of the firm view that there is no merit in the appeal. Rule 16.2. of the Punjab Police Rules specifies certain kinds of punishments to be inflicted but nowhere lays down that approved service of a police personnel with permanent effect can be forfeited. The defendants cannot take advantage from column No. 3 of Rule 16.2 of the rules wherein punishment of stoppage of increment or forfeiture of approved service for increment can be inflicted. The punishment of stoppage of increment or forfeiture of approved service for increment cannot be interpreted to mean that the approved service of a police official with permanent effect can be forfeited. Approved t can be forfeited but not the approved service for a period of three years with permanent effect affecting the rights of a police constable for the purposes of gratuity, pension and seniority. The underlying object in not vesting the authorities, under the above mentioned provisions, with powers to forfeit approved service with permanent effect appears to be that an official should not suffer for all times to come in the matter of gratuity, pension and seniority, otherwise, there was no difficulty in making such a provision. In somewhat similar circumstances Delhi High Court in Ram Pat v. Union of India and others, 1984(3) SLR 756 did not approve the action of the authorities by which the approved service of a police official for ing reduction in pay was forfeited.” In view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or perversity with the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court based on , there being no ignorance or any mis-interpretation pointed out towards the pleadings and the evidence available on record; the present appeal, 5 In this regard, reliance is 1992 (3) SCT 1992 (3) SCT 1992 (3) SCT 1992 (3) SCT After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going findings recorded by the courts below and the relevant there is no merit in the appeal. Rule 16.2. of the Punjab Police Rules specifies certain wn that approved service of a police personnel with permanent effect can be forfeited. The defendants cannot take advantage from column No. 3 of Rule 16.2 of the rules wherein punishment of stoppage of increment or ent can be inflicted. The punishment of stoppage of increment or forfeiture of approved service for increment cannot be interpreted to mean that the approved service of a police official with permanent effect can be forfeited. Approved t can be forfeited but not the approved service for a period of three years with permanent effect affecting the rights of a police constable for the purposes of gratuity, pension and seniority. e above- mentioned provisions, with powers to forfeit approved service with permanent effect appears to be that an official should not suffer for all times to come in the matter of gratuity, pension and seniority, g such a provision. In Ram Pat v. did not approve the action of the authorities by which the approved service of a police official for In view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or based on interpretation pointed out towards the pleadings and the evidence available on record; the present appeal, MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.15 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.3244 of 1999 (O&M) being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed, while upholding the judgment and decree dated 04.03.1999 allowing the suit for declaration preferred at the instance of the respondent plaintiff. [12]. All pending application July July July July 08 08 08 08, 202 , 202 , 202 , 2026666 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable RSA No.3244 of 1999 (O&M) being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed, while upholding the judgment and 04.03.1999 passed by the learned First Appellate Court suit for declaration preferred at the instance of the respondent All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed, while upholding the judgment and passed by the learned First Appellate Court while suit for declaration preferred at the instance of the respondent , if any, shall stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 6 being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed, while upholding the judgment and hile suit for declaration preferred at the instance of the respondent- MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.15 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment