Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 75 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing Rajinder Kaur vs Punjab State & Anr on 8 August, 1986

Rajinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Anr. on 27 January, 2014

In view of above discussion as well as the reasons given in Consumer Complaint No.117 of 2012 (Rajinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.), the Consumer Complaint No.23 of 2013 (Surjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.) is accepted and the opposite parties, more particularly opposite party No.2-Trust is directed to allot a suitable plot to the complainant of the area measuring 300 sq.yds. in the scheme on current reserved price and in case the plot is not available in the above scheme, then the plot measuring 300 sq.yds. shall be allotted by opposite party No.2-Trust in any other scheme floated by it, having the same value. The complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/- which opposite party no.2-Trust is liable to pay.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Others vs Sukhwinder Singh on 14 July, 2005

The main contention on behalf of the appellant was that an inquiry was made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police as to the character of the appellant into the allegation that she stayed at Mahalpur for one or two nights with one constable Jaswant Singh and evidence was recorded therein without giving the appellant any opportunity of hearing or to cross-examine the witnesses and the impugned order was made after completion of the investigation on the ground of her misconduct which cast a stigma on her service career. This contention was accepted and on the finding that though the order of discharge stated to be made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12.21 of the Rules, it was really made on the basis of the misconduct as found on inquiry into the allegation behind her back and further that though the order was couched in innocuous terms, the order was merely camouflage for an order of dismissal from service on the ground of misconduct, the impugned order of discharge was set aside. With respects we are unable to agree with the view taken in this case. As discussed earlier the consistent view of this Court is that even if some kind of preliminary inquiry or fact finding inquiry is held in which the employee is not afforded an opportunity of hearing, the order of discharge of a probationer cannot be treated as an order of punishment as the appointing authority has to necessarily ascertain all the relevant facts before taking a decision whether the probationer should be retained in service or not. The decision in Smt. Rajinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab is hereby over-ruled.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 153 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Ex-Constable Kulwant Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 September, 2008

Other judgements pressed into service by counsel for the appellant are Rajinder Kaur V. Punjab State and another, 1986(3) SLR 78, Rakesh Kumar V. State of Punjab and others, 1999(4) RSJ 194 and Prithipal Singh V. State of Punjab and others, 2000(3) RSJ 736. It is, therefore, submitted that as the order of discharge, is founded upon an alleged misconduct, namely the contracting of a second marriage, the Courts below were obliged to go behind the order RSA No.1806 of 1990 5 and examine, whether the order was passed as a measure of punishment i.e. founded on allegation of misconduct or was an order of discharge simpliciter founded upon the performance and conduct of the appellant. . It is submitted that as the impugned order is an order of punishment, the learned Courts below committed an error in dismissing the suit and the appeal.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 15 - R Bhalla - Full Document

Amarbir Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 7 July, 2003

d) Learned counsel relied on the judgments reported in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 2192; Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India and Anr., (1984) 2 SCC 369; Rajinder Kaur v. Punjab State, 1986(3) S.L.R. 78; Radhey Shyam v. U.P. Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., (1999) (2) S.C.C. 21; and Chander Parkash Sahi v. State of U.P., (2000)5 S.C.C. 152 to contend that the Court will discover punitive character of the impugned action while lifting the veil of innocuouness.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Anr. vs Ex-Constable Jagraj Singh on 4 May, 2004

Sarv. Shri H.S. Mann and K.G. Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on the basis of two judgments of the Supreme Court in Rajinder Kaur v. Punjab State and Anr., 1986(3) S.L.R. 78 and Hardeep Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1988(1) S.L.J. 206 submit that once there are specific allegations against the petitioners, discharge under Rule 12.21 would be violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India if no regular enquiry was conducted to prove such allegations.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Mahavir Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 12 May, 1994

Police Officer, Jamnagar 1986 (2) SLR page 759, Pramod Kumar Nayak v. Union of India & Ors. 1988 (2) SLR 524, Shri Om Prakash Goel v. The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Shimla & Anr. , Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. , Smt. Rajender Kaur v. Punjab State and Anr. , The Manager, Govt, Branch Press & Anr. v. V. D. B. Belliappa 1976 LIC 146, John Fernandez and Anr. Executive Engineer P. H. Dvn.
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next