Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.42 seconds)
Satbir Singh Constable No. 902/Rtk vs The Director General Of Police on 11 January, 2013 cites

State Of Punjab And Ors vs Ram Singh Ex. Constable on 24 July, 1992

13. The judgment in Ex. Constable Malkiat Singh case (supra), relied upon by the petitioner would not be applicable in view of the non-consideration of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Ram Singh's case (supra) and in view of the fact that the petitioner herein had already earlier also absented four times and punished on that account. In the said judgment referred to by the petitioner, the punishing authority had not recorded any such finding as has been done in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 405 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Gurbachan Singh Bachi vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 11 October, 2004

The judgment of Gurbachan Singh Bachi's case (supra) pertains only to the issue of natural justice and removal of a member of the Electricity Board. In the present case, the petitioner was given several opportunities to appear before the inquiry officer and the punishing authority but failed to do so and, therefore, the said judgment would not be applicable.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 8 - S S Saron - Full Document

Karnail Singh And Another vs The State Of Punjab on 9 January, 1953

It was in such circumstances respondent no. 3 came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and keeping in view the totality of circumstances, he came to the conclusion that it was a gravest act of misconduct and indiscipline on part of the petitioner which would fall under clause (iv) of the Explanation of the Rule 16.2, reproduced above. Thus, no fault can be found in the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak regarding the first part that the petitioner was totally incorrigible and completely unfit for police service. It has been time and again held by this Court and by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments that the police force, being a disciplined force, even absent from duty for a short period would be grave misconduct. Reference can be safely made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Karnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1993 (3) PLR 117 and judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and another, (1996) 1 SCC 302.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 213 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Others vs Ashok Kumar Singh & Anr on 10 November, 1995

It was in such circumstances respondent no. 3 came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and keeping in view the totality of circumstances, he came to the conclusion that it was a gravest act of misconduct and indiscipline on part of the petitioner which would fall under clause (iv) of the Explanation of the Rule 16.2, reproduced above. Thus, no fault can be found in the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak regarding the first part that the petitioner was totally incorrigible and completely unfit for police service. It has been time and again held by this Court and by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments that the police force, being a disciplined force, even absent from duty for a short period would be grave misconduct. Reference can be safely made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Karnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1993 (3) PLR 117 and judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and another, (1996) 1 SCC 302.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 160 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

Harjit Singh & Anr vs The State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 February, 2007

11. The petitioner, however, is entitled for the relief of lesser punishment keeping his length of service in mind as, admittedly, he was appointed on 08.09.1981 and he had almost 13 years of service on the date of dismissal on 19.08.1994. The punishing authority, while dismissing him, failed to take into consideration the length of service and his claim for pension in the impugned order. The petitioner in his appeal also, before respondent no. 2, agitated his claim for pension but respondents no. 2 and 3 failed to take this aspect into consideration and dismissed the appeal and revision. This proposition regarding the length of service and its due examination by the punishing authority has also been dilated upon by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Harjit Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and another, (2007) 9 SCC 582. In the said case, vide order dated 21.01.1985, the order of dismissal had been passed and the Apex Court came to the opinion that it would be appropriate if the quantum of punishment was fixed by way of compulsory retirement to meet the ends of justice since the occurrence was of the year 1984. Relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 45 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Si Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 February, 2012

12. That a Division Bench of this Court in SI Surinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2008 (4) SCT 72, in a case pertaining to dismissal of service on account of absence, noticed that the said employee had 20 years of service till the date of dismissal and accordingly, directed that the order of voluntary retirement be passed in order to enable the person to get his retiral dues.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Shiv Raj Singh Sidhu vs Union Of India And Others on 9 November, 2010

Similarly, another Division Bench in CWP No. 11500 of 1997 11 Shiv Raj Singh Sidhu vs. Union of India and others, 2011 (2) SCT 626, while taking into account 33 years of service of the employee, held that the punishment of forfeiture of two years of service was appropriate and he was deemed to have been retired on 30.11.2004 to entitle him to the benefit of pension.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1