Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Sat Pal Sehgal vs The State Of Punjab And Ors. on 10 January, 1964

Anodisers And Electroplaters By ... vs Government Of Madras, Represented By ... on 27 March, 1967

In Sat Pal v. State of Punjab , the question for consideration was whether the requisition of house for residence of the wife of a Serving Military Officer was within the ambit of Section 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962. The wife of the Military Officer approached the Government stating that, since her marriage, her husband had been posted on field duties at non-family stations and overseas, that she had no place to stay as her husband's house was occupied by the tenant, and accordingly prayed that the house might be got vacated for her residence. Her husband had also sent a similar petition. When the tenant failed to vacate it, the District Magistrate requisitioned the house in the interest of affording bare essential amenities to the wife of a Serving Military Officer. When the tenant questioned the act of the State in a writ proceeding, it was observed (at page 237):
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Unknown vs Union Of India Through The Secretary To ... on 13 October, 2011

18 Similar view has been taken by the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Y.P. Sehgal Vs. State of Punjab, 1992 (2) SCT, 179. Considering the view taken by a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal and finding that the case in hand is fully covered by the decision aforesaid, we hold that the applicant is entitled to count the suspension period in question towards qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satish Kumar Chabra vs State Bank Of India And Another on 10 February, 2010

4. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, if the petitioner had been warned or censured that was itself a mode of punishment and it cannot be done contemporaneously with other punishment of disallowing to him full back-wages during the suspension period. Para 19.9 states that the person found guilty of mis-conduct whether gross or minor, shall not be given more than one punishment in respect of only one charge. When the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the Bank and I have not been shown with any other provision than what the learned counsel for the petitioner relied CWP No.10087 of 1993 -4- upon to contend that along side of the punishment of censure, there could not have been also a punishment to deny to the petitioner full back-wages during the suspension period. Unless there is a specific rule enabling upon punishing authority to withdraw the benefit of full back-wages during the period of suspension, when ultimately the punishment that was imposed was merely warning and censure, there is no escape from the conclusion that the impugned order withdrawing to the petitioner the full back-wages except the subsistence allowance already withdrawn, could not be sustained. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on decision of this Hon'ble Court in Y.P.Sehgal Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1992(2) SCT Page 179 when dealing with the case of Civil Servant, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court had held that when a decision had been made awarding a minor punishment of censure, the denial of salary for the suspension period was neither permissible in law nor fair. Although, I am not dealing with Civil Services, still if there are no specific rules providing for a dual punishment of censure and also withdrawal of back-wages, there is no scope for the respondent to inflict such a denial on the petitioner.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - K Kannan - Full Document

H.P. Gupta vs Punjab National Bank And Others on 28 November, 2013

In view of this factual aspect of the matter, order dated 19.12.1991 passed by a Division Bench of this court in P. Sehgal's case (supra) would squarely cover the case of the petitioner in his favour. Having said that, this court feels no hesitation to conclude that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority failed to comply with the principles of natural justice, while passing their respective impugned orders and the same cannot be sustained.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R S Malik - Full Document

Punjab National Bank And Ors vs H P Gupta on 23 September, 2014

In view of the aforesaid factual position, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the orders of the punishing and the appellate authorities, while relying upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2543 of 1991 (P. Sehgal Vs. State of Punjab). Thus , we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harinder Singh Chahal vs State Of Punjab on 30 January, 2024

10. The issue which arises for consideration is, as to whether the suspension period is to be treated as duty period or not, when ultimately minor punishment is awarded in the disciplinary proceedings which is not res integra. The Division Bench of this Court in Y.P. Sehgal's case (supra), has held that when the petitioner has been reinstated and the proposed disciplinary action against him has resulted in imposition of minor punishment, it is neither permissible in law nor fair to deny him the arrears of salary and allowances for the suspension period.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Chairman And Managing Director, ... vs K. S. Ravi Kumar on 30 July, 2024

The Division Bench relied on Y.P. Sehgal Vs. State of Punjab 3, (decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court), and on A.V. Vinod Kumar (supra) to hold that the 3(1991) 1 SLR 583 (P&H) (DB) 7 MB,J & MGP,J W.A.No.1020 of 2018 consistent view of the Courts has been to the effect that imposition of minor penalty would warrant the period of suspension being treated as "on duty".
Telangana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt,.Satya Wanti vs State Of Hy on 14 January, 2026

5. In the present case, the services of the appellant/plaintiff were terminated on 29.08.1983 without following the due procedure of law and, therefore, the same was withdrawn by the appellate authority and the matter was referred back to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, after following the due procedure of law, awarded minor punishment of warning to the appellant/plaintiff and treated the period from 26.10.1983 to 31.12.1985 as leave of the kind due. Once only minor punishment has been awarded to the appellant/plaintiff, therefore, she cannot be denied the benefit of pay and allowances for the period she remained out of service due to illegal action of the respondent-department in terminating her services, which was ultimately withdrawn by the appellate authority. The said view is also supported from the judgments of this Court in Y.P. Sehgal v. State of Punjab : 1992(2) SCT 179; Dalip Singh v. State of Haryana and another : 2003(4) SCT 261; Dr. M.L. Kamra and others v. State of Haryana and others : 2009(4) SCT 27 and O.P. Sindhwani v. State of Haryana and another : 2009(4) SCT 62, wherein the suspension period was treated as leave of the kind due, despite award of minor punishment in the said cases and the employees were held entitled to 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 19-01-2026 22:32:57 ::: RSA-3793-1999 (O&M) -4- pay and allowances for the suspension period.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1