Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. Anwar Singh appellant joined the police department as a Constable on 9.2.1966. He absented himself from duty on 30.6.1987. He was charge-sheeted. An enquiry was held. He was heard on the point of sentence. He was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 24.12.1987. The appellant filed civil suit on 17.3.1988 to challenge the order of dismissal from service dated 24.12.1987. 2. The said suit was contested by the respondents. Preliminary objections were also pleaded. The parties led the evidence. 3. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 1.3.1990 set aside the impugned order dated 24.12.1987 and the suit was decreed with costs. 4. The respondents filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree. The learned Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and accepted the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 17.8.1992. 5. Hence, the present appeal. 6. The appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 5.3.1993. 7. The following substantial question of law arises Whether the provisions of Order 16 Rule 2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (in short the Rules, 1934) have been complied with. If not, its effect ? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no allegation against the appellant if he was guilty of gravest acts of misconduct or if the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proved incorrigibility of the appellant leading to his complete unfitness for service. It was further submitted that the respondents have not taken in view the length of service of the appellant and his claim to pension particularly when the appellan had rendered more than 20 years of unblemished service. Reliance was placed on the judgments of this Court reported as Sukhdev Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 1983(2) Services Law Reporter 645, Ram Partap, Constable v. State of Haryana and others, 1989(4) Services Law Reporter 50, The Punjab State & another v. Balwant Singh, ExConstable, 1989(4) Services Law Reporter 105 and the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported as Narmada Pd. Yadav v. State of M.P. & Ors., 2007(1) Service Cases Today 3. 9. On the other hand, the submission of learned State counsel was that the charge against the appellant was that he remained absent for a continuously long period with effect from 30.6.1987. The charge was framed. The appellant did not appear. Yadav v. State of M.P. & Ors., 2007(1) Service Cases Today 3. 9. On the other hand, the submission of learned State counsel was that the charge against the appellant was that he remained absent for a continuously long period with effect from 30.6.1987. The charge was framed. The appellant did not appear. He did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. He was held guilty of the charge of absence which amounted to gravest misconduct and the misconduct proved against the appellant fully justified his dismissal from service. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court reported as Mohinder Paul, Ex-Constable v. State of Punjab and others, 2003(2) SCT 974 : 2003(3) Recent Services Judgments 257. Submissions have been considered. 10. It is of great importance to examine the provisions of Rule 16.2(1) of the Rules, 1934. It reads as under : "Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct, proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension." 11. It was not disputed before this Court that the appellant had absented from duty with effect from 30.6.1987. He was charge-sheeted. Enquiry was held against the appellant. He did not participate. He was heard on the point of sentence and show cause notice was sent at his home. He had filed reply and he was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 24.12.1987. 12. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that it was a single alleged misconduct against the appellant while the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Rules, 1934 anticipate the multiple gravest acts of misconduct or the cumulative effect of continued misconduct, proving incorrigibility and connplete unfitness for service. In other words, it should have been more than one misconduct for which the punishment of dismissal from service can be awarded and not the single act of misconduct. 13. This submission is totally fallacious. In other words, it should have been more than one misconduct for which the punishment of dismissal from service can be awarded and not the single act of misconduct. 13. This submission is totally fallacious. It only means that if the appellant had absented himself intermittently for a couple of days, may be within a month or two, these acts of misconduct would fall within the mischief of Rule 16.2 Rules, 1934 being more than one, but continued absence from duty for more than three, four or six months does not constitute misconduct within the meaning of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules. Such a submission is devoid of merit and does not appeal to reason. 14. The continued absence for such a long period was in itself gravest misconduct. Each days absence amounted to an act of misconduct. The total absence for six months has to be considered as a multiple acts of misconduct. Not only this, when the charge-sheet was sent to him, the appellant did not appear. When he was sent notice by the Enquiry Officer, he did not appear. He did not join the proceedings. These acts of the appellant also amounted to gravest form of misconduct. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said if the misconduct complained of against the appellant did not fall within the purview of Rule 16.2 of the Rules, 1934. The cumulative effect of continued absence from duty amounted to gravest act of misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for service. Therefore, the appellant was liable to be removed from service under Rule 16.2 of the Rules, 1934 as the misconduct committed by the appellant was of gravest form proving his complete unfitness for service. 15. There is a second limb of Rule 16.2 of the Rules, 1934 which lays down that while making such an award, regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension. It was pleaded by the appellanl in para No. 1 of the plaint that he had joined as a Constable on 9.2.1966. It was adniittcd by the respondents in the written statement. The appellant absented on 30.6.1987. It means that on the date of absence, the appellant had completed 21 years of service. Rule 2(3) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 provides that qualifying service means service qualifying for pension. It was adniittcd by the respondents in the written statement. The appellant absented on 30.6.1987. It means that on the date of absence, the appellant had completed 21 years of service. Rule 2(3) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 provides that qualifying service means service qualifying for pension. Rule 3(3)(a) proves that at any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service. It means, therefore, that once an employee completes twenty years of service, he is entitled to seek retirement and he becomes eligible for pension. 16. In reply to the show cause notice regarding punishment, the appellant had pleaded in para No. 6 of the reply that he was in service with effect from 9.2.1966. The punishing authority in the impugned order dated 24.12.1987 while discussing para No. 6 of the reply considered that the delinquent official has taken the stand of long service and the proposed punishment of dismissal from service being excessive but it was observed in the order dated 24.12.1987 that since the delinquent official has committed gravest act of misconduct, therefore, the order of dismissal was being passed against him. 17. However, in the impugned order dated 24.12.1987, the punishing authority has not considered his claim to pension. While Rule 16.2(1) provides a mandate that the punishing authority shall have regard to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension. The punishing authority in the impugned order dated 24.12.1987 considered the length of service but did not consider his claim to pension while it was mandatory for him to do so. 18. So far as the judgment of this Court in Mohinder Pauls case (supra) relied upon by the learned State Counsel is concerened, in this case the Constable had only about eight years of service and had not become eligible for pension. Therefore, the question of claim to pension had not come up for consideration before this Court in Mohinder Pauls case (supra). Secondly, some other acts of misconduct were also complained against him prior to the charge-sheet framed against the official. Therefore, the facts in Mohinder Pauls case (supra) were different and the said judgment does not apply to the facts of this case. 19. Secondly, some other acts of misconduct were also complained against him prior to the charge-sheet framed against the official. Therefore, the facts in Mohinder Pauls case (supra) were different and the said judgment does not apply to the facts of this case. 19. Therefore, the question of law is answered accordingly and it is held that the first limb of Rule 16.2(1) of the Rules, 1934 stands satisfied but the second limb of this Rule was mandatory and has not been complied with. 20. In these circumstances, it is held that the appellant had committed acts of gravest misconduct which proves the complete unfitness of the appellant for service, but his claim for pension was not considered by the punishing authority while passing the impugned order dated 24.12.1987 dismissing the appellant from service. Consequently, the order of dismissal of the appellant is converted into compulsory retirement. This appeal is accepted to the extent stated above.