Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.91 seconds)
State Of Punjab vs Satnam Singh on 17 February, 2026 cites

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

The facts in the case of Sukhwinder Singh (supra), as has been stated hereinabove, are similar to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the employee Sukhwinder Singh had joined on 04.08.1989 as Police Constable and he had absented himself from his duty w.e.f. 22.02.1990 and thereafter the Senior Superintendent of Police had passed the order dated 16.03.1990 discharging him from service. The order of discharge in the said case, which is similar to the order passed in the present case is reproduced hereinbelow:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 153 - G P Mathur - Full Document

State Of Haryana & Anr vs Jagdish Chander on 13 January, 1995

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has supported the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and the First 3 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2026 23:58:49 ::: RSA-2439-1993 -4- Appellate Court and has submitted that the same do not suffer from illegality or perversity and deserves to be upheld. It has further been submitted that the respondent-plaintiff was discharged from service on account of alleged absence from duty, however, he had been sanctioned leave from time to time by the competent authority. On 07.04.1990 also, he was granted one day's casual leave, however, due to illness he could not report for duty, therefore, he was wrongly discharged from duty vide order dated 20.06.1990, which has rightly been set aside by both the Courts. He has placed reliance upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Rajinder Kaur v. Punjab State and another, 1986(4) SCC 141; State of Haryana v. Jagdish Chander, 1995(2) SCT 427 and Ex-Constable Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1995(3) RSJ 654, and the judgments of this Court in Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 1999(2) SCT 574; The State of Punjab v. Sain Dass, 2009(1) SCT 602; State of Punjab v.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 106 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Krishan Kumar Malik vs State Of Haryana on 4 July, 2011

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has supported the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and the First 3 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2026 23:58:49 ::: RSA-2439-1993 -4- Appellate Court and has submitted that the same do not suffer from illegality or perversity and deserves to be upheld. It has further been submitted that the respondent-plaintiff was discharged from service on account of alleged absence from duty, however, he had been sanctioned leave from time to time by the competent authority. On 07.04.1990 also, he was granted one day's casual leave, however, due to illness he could not report for duty, therefore, he was wrongly discharged from duty vide order dated 20.06.1990, which has rightly been set aside by both the Courts. He has placed reliance upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Rajinder Kaur v. Punjab State and another, 1986(4) SCC 141; State of Haryana v. Jagdish Chander, 1995(2) SCT 427 and Ex-Constable Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1995(3) RSJ 654, and the judgments of this Court in Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 1999(2) SCT 574; The State of Punjab v. Sain Dass, 2009(1) SCT 602; State of Punjab v.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 321 - D Verma - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Bhagwan Dass Jain on 27 August, 1980

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has supported the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and the First 3 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2026 23:58:49 ::: RSA-2439-1993 -4- Appellate Court and has submitted that the same do not suffer from illegality or perversity and deserves to be upheld. It has further been submitted that the respondent-plaintiff was discharged from service on account of alleged absence from duty, however, he had been sanctioned leave from time to time by the competent authority. On 07.04.1990 also, he was granted one day's casual leave, however, due to illness he could not report for duty, therefore, he was wrongly discharged from duty vide order dated 20.06.1990, which has rightly been set aside by both the Courts. He has placed reliance upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Rajinder Kaur v. Punjab State and another, 1986(4) SCC 141; State of Haryana v. Jagdish Chander, 1995(2) SCT 427 and Ex-Constable Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1995(3) RSJ 654, and the judgments of this Court in Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 1999(2) SCT 574; The State of Punjab v. Sain Dass, 2009(1) SCT 602; State of Punjab v.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Rajinder Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 2 December, 2004

Constable, 1989(3) SLR 665; Rajinder Singh v. The State of Haryana and others, 1989(2) SLR 79, wherein the discharge under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules on account of alleged absence was held to be impermissible. The said judgment of the trial Court was assailed by the State before the first appellate Court, however, the said appeal was dismissed, vide judgment and decree dated 08.06.1993, whereby the findings recorded by the trial Court were upheld. The said judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court have been assailed in the instant Regular Second Appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 111 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Ajit Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 16 September, 1999

20. In the present case neither any formal departmental inquiry nor any preliminary fact- finding inquiry had been held and a simple order of discharge had been passed. The High Court has built an edifice on the basis of a statement made in the written statement that the respondent was a habitual absentee during his short period of service and has concluded therefrom that it was his absence from duty that weighed in the mind of Senior Superintendent of Police as absence from duty is a misconduct. The High Court has further gone on to hold that there is direct nexus between the order of discharge of the respondent from service and his absence from duty and, therefore, the order discharging him from service will be viewed as punitive in nature calling for a regular inquiry under Rule 16.24 of the Rules. We are of the opinion that the High Court has gone completely wrong in drawing the inference that the order of discharge dated 16.3.1990 was, in fact, based upon misconduct and was, therefore, punitive in nature, which should have been preceded by a regular departmental inquiry. There cannot be any doubt that the respondent was on probation having been appointed about eight months back. As observed in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab the period of probation gives time and opportunity to the employer to watch the work, ability, efficiency, sincerity and competence of the servant and if he is found not suitable for the post, the master reserves a right to dispense with his service without anything more during or at the end of the prescribed period, which is styled as period of probation. The mere holding of preliminary inquiry where explanation is called from an employee would not make an otherwise innocuous order of discharge or termination of service punitive in nature. Therefore, the High Court was clearly in error in holding that the respondent's absence from duty was the foundation of the order, 7 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2026 23:58:49 ::: RSA-2439-1993 -8- which necessitated an inquiry as envisaged under Rule 16.24(ix) of the Rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 601 - M J Rao - Full Document
1   2 Next