The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected a plea by a former Chandigarh Police constable seeking pension benefits for his nearly 12-year tenure, ruling that personnel dismissed for severe indiscipline cannot claim pensionary entitlements when service regulations mandate the forfeiture of past service.
Delivering the order on October 7, Justice Namit Kumar observed that public employment demands strict adherence to punctuality, discipline, and lawful directions. The bench held that an employee cannot abandon duty at personal convenience and subsequently seek to shield themselves from the statutory consequences of dismissal by citing their previous length of service. The court further clarified that pension claims cannot be evaluated in isolation from service rules governing termination.
Unauthorised Overseas Travel and Absence
The petitioner had joined the Chandigarh Police Security Wing as a constable on August 11, 1994. In early 2007, he took 45 days of sanctioned earned leave, extending from February 19 to April 4, which the department subsequently prolonged through August 2, 2007.
However, he failed to report back to work on August 3, 2007, and remained absent without official leave. Departmental records revealed that the constable had travelled to England without obtaining mandatory ex-India clearance, without informing senior officers, and without disclosing the foreign journey in his leave submissions. Authorities noted that his spouse acknowledged his overseas stay and maintained telephone contact with him during that period.
Disciplinary Action and Delayed Appeals
In response to his continued non-attendance, the department placed the constable under suspension and initiated formal disciplinary proceedings. The inquiry proceeded ex parte after he repeatedly failed to respond to official summonses.
On June 9, 2008, the department served a show-cause notice proposing his removal from the force. When he failed to furnish a reply or appear before the competent authority, orders were issued terminating his service later that year.
The former constable challenged the termination order after a six-year delay, but the appellate authority turned down his appeal in 2015. A subsequent revision petition met the same fate in 2020, prompting him to petition the high court for pensionary relief covering his 11 years and nine months of active police service prior to dismissal.
Rival Arguments and Ruling
Before the high court, counsel for the petitioner, Sukhjeet Kaur, contended that the man’s substantial term of regular service entitled him to retirement benefits regardless of his dismissal. The petitioner also sought to justify his absence on medical grounds, citing a head injury and resultant memory loss.
Opposing the petition, Additional Advocate General Siddharth Sandhu submitted that the relevant service regulations contain no provision granting pensions to dismissed staff. The state also challenged the medical defence, describing it as an afterthought that lacked supporting contemporaneous records or prior departmental notification.
Dismissing the plea, Justice Namit Kumar ruled that prolonged, unauthorized absence within a disciplined uniformed force amounts to serious misconduct. The court affirmed that because applicable rules stipulate the forfeiture of qualifying service upon dismissal, the petitioner possessed no enforceable legal right to receive pension benefits.
