Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.94 seconds)
Documents citing S.B. Panihar vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam on 29 January, 2001

Sunehra Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 28 August, 2019

In S.B. 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 06-10-2019 20:39:02 ::: CWP No.15384 of 2019 (O&M) -7- Panihar's case (supra), interpreting Rule 3.26 (d) of Punjab Civil Service Rules, Division Bench of this Court found order of compulsory retirement punitive and stigmatic, thus, was quashed. There was no occasion for the respondents to relate event of alleged embezzlement with conduct of the petitioner in the absence of any communication of ACR qua his integrity nor the enquiry reveals the same.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A Rawal - Full Document

Pawan Kumar Gupta vs State Of Haryana And Another on 14 October, 2025

20. We have examined the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in S. B. Panihar (supra), which, in our considered view, is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the Division Bench found that compulsory retirement was in the nature of punishment on account of pending disciplinary inquiry. The Court found that the order of compulsory retirement was stigmatic and punitive in nature and consequently it was set aside. On facts, this is not the case. The Division Bench judgment, therefore, will have no applicability.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Management Ch. Mohd. Yasin Khan vs Mohammad Israil And Others on 15 March, 2012

The learned Single Judge while taking into consideration the grounds on which respondent No.1, who was working as Social Studies Master in the school, was compulsorily retired and the decisions of this Court in A.S.I. Radhey Shyam vs. Union of India and others reported as 2001(2) RSJ 172, S.B. Panihar vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited reported as 2001 (2) RSJ 240 and Mohan Lal Vohra vs. State of Haryana reported as 1992(2) 642, has come to the conclusion that the LPA No. 354 of 2012 (O&M) -2- reasons on which respondent No.1 was compulsorily retired, are stigmatic and passed without any enquiry, therefore, the order of compulsory retirement could not be sustained.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1