Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.24 seconds)
Gurbir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 27 April, 2026 cites

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

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.9997 of 1995 titled as State of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar Singh, decided on 10.11.1995, has held that absence from duty in respect of a police official, who is a member of disciplined force, is to be treated as grievous act of misconduct and the punishment of dismissal cannot be treated as disproportionate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 160 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad vs Union Of India on 28 July, 2023

18. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment Madan Prasad v. Union of India, 2015 SCC Online AFT 887 passed by the AFT. The appellant had been taking too many liberties during his service and despite several punishments awarded to him earlier, ranging from imposition of fine to rigorous imprisonment, he did not mend his ways. This was his sixth infraction for the very same offence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 5 - H Kohli - Full Document

Gurtej Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 20 March, 2019

10. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in RSA No.4475 of 2001 titled as Gurtej Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 21.02.2005. In the said case, appellant therein was working in the Police Department and remained absent from duty for 38 days. It was held that even where such words 'gravest act of misconduct' have not been mentioned, in the order of dismissal, the said order of dismissal may not be void. The relevant extract from the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - A Kshetarpal - Full Document

Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 27 March, 2014

12. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in CWP No.9342 of 2013 titled as Narinder Singh Vs. State of DIWAKER GULATI 2026.04.27 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -8- CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M) Punjab, decided on 02.05.2013, wherein it is held that the previous record can be taken into consideration while passing the order of dismissal. The relevant extract from the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 15111 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Jagjit Singh Chahal vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 October, 2015

15. Reliance is made to the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-4762-2009 titled as Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 19.08.2025. In the abovesaid case, the petitioner was working on the post of Constable and he remained absent from duty for 185 days. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner therein was absent from duty for the abovesaid period and was also a habitual absentee, it was held that the punishment of dismissal cannot be held to be disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 100 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Mahender Singh And Anr vs State Of Haryana on 24 May, 2019

17. Similar issue again came up for consideration before this Court in RSA-2485-2003 titled as Mahender Singh Vs. State of Haryana decided on 29.03.2023. In the abovesaid case, petitioner was working as Constable in Punjab Police and the absence was for a DIWAKER GULATI 2026.04.27 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -15- CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M) period of 74 days and it was held by Coordinate Bench that the absence from duty amounts to grave act of misconduct and dismissal from service is justified and not disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - H S Sidhu - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Bakhshish Singh & Ors on 17 October, 2008

20. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4212 of 1997 titled as State of Punjab vs. Bakhshish Singh, decided on 05.05.1997, the imposition of punishment is the prerogative of the punishing authority and the Court cannot substitute its own view with that of the disciplinary authority unless and until the punishment imposed is too shocking, hence, no ground is made out for intervention of this Court qua the same argument.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 10 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Krushnakant B. Parmar vs Union Of India & Anr on 15 February, 2012

21. Learned counsel for the appellant cites judgments in Civil Appeal No.2106 of 2012 titled as Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India and another, decided on 15.02.2012, RSA No.2438 of 1982 titled as Jawant Singh vs. State of Punjab, decided on 18.07.1996, CWP No.13608 of 1989 titled as Paramjit Singh, Ex-Head Constable vs. State of Punjab, decided on 02.11.1995, Civil Appeal DIWAKER GULATI No.1621 of 1986 titled as Ram Chander vs. Union of India 2026.04.27 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -18- CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M) and others, decided on 02.05.1986, RSA No.1159 of 1986 titled as State of Punjab and another vs. Ram Singh, decided on 10.03.1989, CWP No.6001 of 1989 titled as Mahipat vs. State of Haryana, decided on 17.03.1994 and Civil Appeal No.496 of 1965 titled as Management of the Northern Railway Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Jodhpur vs. Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan-Jaipur and another, decided on 27.01.1967.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 454 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next