Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)Gurmit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 16 August, 2010
Kamlesh Kumari' 1988(1) SLR 614. Counsel has also relied upon a
judgment rendered by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2127 of 1994
titled as 'Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab and others' decided on
August 16, 2010.
State Of Punjab vs Joginder Singh on 16 November, 1962
In support of this, reliance has been placed upon 'Punjab
State v. Joginder Singh' 1989(3) SLR 665.
Sher Singh & Anr vs State Of Haryana on 16 December, 2010
The controversy raised in the present petition is no longer res-
judicata. The scope of rules 12.21 and 19.5 along with rule 16.24 of the
Rules and provisions enshrined under Article 311 of the Constitution of
India, was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in 'Sher Singh v.
State of Haryana' 1994(3) SCT 1, wherein it was held that when an
employee has no right to the post and the competent authority is satisfied
that his work is not satisfactory or that his continuation in service is not in
public interest on account of his inability, misconduct or inefficiency, it can
Civil Writ Petition No.10949 of 1991 5
either terminate his services in accordance with the terms of appointment
or the rules governing the service, or it may decide to take punitive action
against him. It was held that where authorities do not want to persist with
the punitive action, a Constable can be discharged from the service at any
time within three years from his entry into service, as for a period of three
years, a Constable is under surveillance. He is being watched. He is kept
under close supervision. He has no right to the post. His services are
terminable at any time during the period of three years. He can secure his
position in the service only if he convinces the Superintendent of Police
that he is likely to prove an efficient police officer.
State Of Punjab And Others vs Sukhwinder Singh on 14 July, 2005
In view of the position of law enunciated above, the arguments
advanced by counsel for the petitioner already stand repelled in Sher
Civil Writ Petition No.10949 of 1991 8
Singh's case and Sukhwinder Singh's case (supra), and the judgments
relied upon by the counsel do not hold field.
Sher Singh Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc on 8 January, 1991
"7. A Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court
in Sher Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1994(3)
SCT 1 (P&H) : 1994(1) PLR 456, has examined the content
and scope of Rules 12.21, 19.3 and 19.5 of the Rules in
considerable detail. It has been held in that case that the
effect of the Rules is that for a period of three years a
constable is under surveillance. He is being watched and is
kept in close supervision. He has no right to the post and his
services are terminable at any time during this period of three
years. He can secure his position in the service only if he
convinces the Superintendent of Police that he is likely to
prove an efficient police officer. The Full Bench has further
held that the Rules contained the necessary guidelines for
the Superintendent of Police, on the basis of which, he has to
form an opinion regarding a constable. If on a consideration
of the relevant material, the Superintendent of Police finds
that a particular constable is not active, disciplined, self-
Superintendent Of Police, Ludhiana & ... vs Dwarka Das Etc on 28 November, 1978
In fact, this view is in consonance
with the decision of this Court rendered in The
Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and another v.
Dwarka Das, 1979(1) SLR 299, where it was observed that if
Rules 12.21(3) and 12.21 are read together, it will appear
that the maximum period of probation in the case of a police
officer of the rank of constable is three years, for the
Superintendent of Police concerned has the power to
discharge him within that period. It was also held that the
power of discharge cannot be exercised under Rule 12.21
after the expiry of the period of three years and
consequentially if it is proposed to deal with an inefficient
police officer after the expiry of that period, it is necessary to
do so in accordance with Chapter XVI of the Rules, which
makes provisions for the imposition of various punishments
including dismissal from the police force. No simple order of
discharge under Rule 12.21 can be passed after the expiry of
the period of three years for that will attract Article 311 of the
Constitution.
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Rajinder Kaur vs Punjab State & Anr on 8 August, 1986
In support of this argument, reliance has been placed upon
'Rajinder Kaur v. Punjab State and another' AIR 1986 Supreme Court
Civil Writ Petition No.10949 of 1991 3
1790, wherein it was held that the impugned order of discharge though
couched in innocuous terms, is merely a camouflage for an order of
dismissal from service on the ground of misconduct. Therefore, their
Lordships held that the order has been passed without serving the
delinquent employee any chargesheet, without asking any explanation and
without giving any opportunity to show cause against the purported order
of dismissal from service, and without giving any opportunity to cross-