#punjabhighcourt Archives

16 Apr

“Lack of Discipline Among Disciplined Forces Deemed as the Gravest Act of Misconduct: Punjab and Haryana High Court”

Blog #CourtJudgment, #disciplinaryproceedings, #DismissalFromService, #JudicialAnalysis, #LegalPrecedents, #naturaljustice, #PoliceMisconduct, #punjabhighcourt 4

Case title: The State of Punjab and others v. Ex. Constable Amarjit Singh

Case no.: RSA-4995 of 1999

Dated on: 22^nd February 2024

Coram: Justice Namit Kumar

FACTS OF THE CASE

Ex. Constable Amarjit Singh filed a suit for declaration challenging his dismissal from service by the Comdt. 13th Bn PAF Jalandhar Cantt. The plaintiff alleged that the dismissal order was illegal, void, and violated principles of natural justice. He claimed reinstatement with all monetary benefits attached to the service. The plaintiff argued that the disciplinary proceedings against him were conducted ex parte without proper notice or opportunity to defend himself. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that the plaintiff wilfully absented himself from duty, leading to the departmental inquiry and subsequent dismissal.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Argued that the plaintiff’s absence from duty for 44 days and 23 hours constituted grave misconduct, justifying his dismissal. They claimed that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice.

A Division Bench of the Court in State of Haryana and others v. Gurdev Singh, 1981(3) SLR 130 observed as under: “To our mind, the cases with regard to misconduct on the part of the police officers while on duty have not to be interfered with by the Courts lightly unless it is found that the action has been taken wantonly or arbitrarily.”

State of Punjab and others v. Chamkaur Singh – has held that act of absence from duty by a member of disciplined force without information shows the lack of discipline.

No representation on behalf of the respondent.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules reads as under: – Dismissal – (1) Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension.

(2) If the conduct of an enrolled police officer leads to his conviction on a criminal charge and he is sentenced to imprisonment, he shall be dismissed: Provided that a punishing authority may, in an exceptional case involving manifestly extenuating circumstances for reasons to be recorded and with the prior approval of the next higher authority impose any punishment other than that of dismissal: Provided further that in case the conviction of an enrolled police officer is set aside in appeal or revision, the officer empowered to appoint him shall review his case keeping in view the instructions issued by the Government from time to time in this behalf.

ISSUE –

Whether the orders of dismissal passed against the respondent were legal and justified.
Whether the suit filed by the respondent is maintainable & Locus standi of the plaintiff.
Validity of notice under Section 80 CPC.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Court examined the relevant provisions, including Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, which govern dismissal from service. It considered precedents highlighting the gravity of misconduct in disciplined forces and the importance of maintaining discipline.

The Court emphasized that the plaintiff’s absence from duty, especially during basic training, demonstrated a lack of discipline, a fundamental requirement in the police force. It cited case law supporting the view that interference with disciplinary action should be minimal unless the action is wanton or arbitrary.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the dismissal order was justified given the gravity of the misconduct. The plaintiff’s short service tenure and absence without leave further supported this decision. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and dismissing the plaintiff’s suit.

The case underscores the significance of discipline in disciplined forces and the courts’ reluctance to interfere with disciplinary actions unless they are arbitrary or disproportionate. It reaffirms the principle that grave misconduct warrants appropriate disciplinary measures, including dismissal from service.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A

Click the Link to View Judgement

2 Nov

Supreme Court’s Firm Stance: Prioritizing Justice and Compliance in Bail Proceedings

Prime Legal

Blog #haryanahighcourt, #law, #LegalPost, #punjabhighcourt, bail

Title: Gulab Singh vs State Of Haryana & Another

Citation: CRM-M-52639-2023

Corum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Decided on: 17.10.2023

Introduction:

This case appears to involve allegations of assault and threats made against Azad Singh’s father by a group of individuals including Sandeep Singh and the application for anticipatory bail for some of the co-accused is being discussed in the Co-ordinate bench. In this case Supreme Court made several key observations and issued a directions based on the circumstances.

Facts:

In this case, the FIR has been filed based on a statement given by Azad Singh, a resident of Ballu. Azad Singh and his elder uncle, Sh. Arjun Singh, were going to their fields in a buggy, following Azad’s father on a motorcycle for grass cutting. While they were near their field, a motor cycle and a car stopped in front of their fields and a group of individuals, including Sandeep Singh, Methab Singh, Lakha Singh and Gurlal Singh arrived at a scene. These individuals were armed with swords and sticks. The group of individuals began beating Azad Singh’s father. Azad Singh states that they had filed court cases against Sandeep Singh previously, resulting in a sentence for him. Sandeep Singh had been pressuring them to compromise on these cases.

Azad Singh alleges that the group of individuals including Sandeep Singh and people had wrongfully injured his father and seeks legal action against them. Regarding the anticipatory bail applications, it is mentioned that the second anticipatory bail applications of co-accused, Sukha Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, have been entertained by the Co-ordinate Bench, and interim protection has been granted in their cases on specific dates.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The case involves the petitioner filing an application for anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s stance that the previous anticipatory might have been withdrawn instead of being considered onits merits. The principle of res judicata should not be applied to an application for bail. The Supreme Court concluded that the earlier order 07.03.2017 should be ser aside. The case would stand revived before the High Court and the matter would be listed for consideration on 03.04.2017 in accordance with the law.

The judgment emphasizes that the facts and circumstances of the instant case are entirely different. It accuses the petitioner of attempting to mislead the court by concealing the fact of an order dated 17.08.2022, which required the petitioner to surrender within a week. The petitioner had not complied with this order. The judgment also notes that the stay on proceedings before the trial court, granted under Section 319 Cr.P.C., was only issued on 28.10.2022. The court suggests that had the petitioner surrendered, they could have applied for regular bail, and the High Court might have directed the trial court to expeditiously consider the regular bail application within three days.

Written By- Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

1 Nov

The police constable who faced charges of extortion got his bail application denied – Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana

Prime Legal

Blog #extortion, #haryanahighcourt, #policeconstable, #punjabhighcourt

Title: MOHIT BEDI VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: CRM-M-39741-2023

Corum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Decided on: 17^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2023

Introduction:

Police constable, Mohit Bedi, accused of extortion from the accused Gopal Singh’ s wife, Maryam, filed bail application in Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the prime facie evidence are sufficient enough to hold the case against petitioner and the petitioner is a member of police personnel which constitutes the crime more serious.

Facts:

The petitioner, Mohit Bedi, who was a constable in Special Task Force of Punjab Police, was accused of extortion of Rs 10,00,000 from complainant (Maryam). Based on the complaint of Maryam, Police team from Vigilance Department have conducted a trap operation to arrest the petitioner and co-accused. The complainant presented Rs 2,00,000 i.e. advance amount of total bribe to Vigilance Team and the team have noted down the serial number of the currency and smeared them with phenolphthalein powder. Later, the complainant along with 2 shadow witnesses handed over the same currency amount to co-accused Aman. Aman, on receiving the amount, calculated it with his fingers and kept it in his drawer. The shadow witnesses have witnessed the same and gave signal to the vigilance Team. Vigilance Team, on getting the signal, raided co-accused Aman’s shop, recovered the amount and cross checked the serial number (which mostly matched), and dipped Aman’s fingers in sodium carbonated solution water. The water turned pink which indicated that Aman has used his fingers on the same currency notes.

Aman was taken into custody by Vigilance Team to Special Task Force office, Amritsar. During his custodial interrogation, Aman disclosed that Maryam told him (Aman) that her husband has been arrested by police and police has demanded the said amount from her. Aman also disclosed that Maryam’s husband, Gopal Singh, has contacted him through petitioner’s WhatsApp and asked for help and to settle the matter with police. After the recording of the statement, petitioner Mohit Bedi was arrested.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana observed that cases of extortion are part of a severe crime. And the extortion done by a police personnel do not only degrades the position of the victim, but also deceives his colleagues. The petitioner knew about the illegal dealing of drugs by Gopal Singh and so wanted to have a piece of such a big cake. The evidence presented by Vigilance Team were sufficient enough prime facie accuse the petitioner.

Based on the above findings and observations by Hon’ble High Court, the bail petition was dismissed and the Interim orders was stand vacated. Also the bail bonds, if any, were cancelled.

Written by- Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

16 Oct

The Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala to remove stray dogs from the nearby areas of judicial complex and rehabilitate them

Prime Legal

Blog #animalrights, #humanrights, #punjabhighcourt, #straydogs

Title: Rav Pratap Singh v. Anurag Aggarwal & Ors.

Decided on: 12.10.2023

Citation: COCP-1121-2017 (O&M) COCP-1182-2017 (O&M)

Coram: Arvind Singh Sangwan

Introduction

The Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala to take prompt action in the matter of the menace created by stray dogs. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan gave direction to Deputy Commissioner, Ambala to remove the stray dogs from the nearby areas of the Judicial Complex, where the residences of the Judicial Officers are situated and rehabilitate the stray dogs at the outskirts of the city, which is less populated area with immediate effect.

Facts of the Case

The Court preponed the petitions on receiving a complaint given by Mr. Phalit Sharma, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ambala, from the District and Sessions Judge, Ambala. Mr. Phalit Sharma in his complaint highlighted the menace created by stray dogs in residential areas where various judicial officers and general public are residing. He further stated in the complaint that he has been attacked twice by the stray dogs and other officers and public have also faced similar attacks from the dogs. Even the people commuting by two wheelers are facing such horrifying experiences.

The Complaint further stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala is paying no heed to the requests made by Mr. Phalit Sharma to follow the directions passed by Hon’ble High Court concerning checking stray dog menace. The complaint also quoted several judicial pronouncements regarding stray dogs wherein Hon’ble Apex Court can be seen equally concerned about Stray Dog Menace.

Hence, Mr. Phalit Sharma through this complaint seeks intervention of the High Court in order to compel the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala to take appropriate action to curb the menace of stray dogs.

Court’s observation and analysis

The Counsel, appearing for the state of Haryana submitted that the Urban Town Planner, Municipal Corporation, Ambala has invited e-Tenders for the sterilization and vaccination of the stray dogs in Ambala. However, the High Court was of the view that the said action is not immediate and effective in nature. There is a need to grant relief to the judicial officers urgently.

Therefore, the High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala to immediately look into the matter and remove the stray dogs from the nearby areas of the Judicial Complex, where the residences of the Judicial Officers are situated and rehabilitate the stray dogs at the outskirts of the city, which is less populated area.

Further, the Counsel, appearing for the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, submitted that Byelaws have been framed and it has been put to the House for approval, wherein it has been proposed that six breeds, i.e. American Bull Dog, American Pitbull, Bull Terrier, Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Rottweiler, and all of their cross breeds will not be permitted to be kept in residential area in any manner.

Conclusion

The rights of human beings cannot be compromised in the name of compassion for animals. This principle was aptly applied by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the present case wherein the Court ensured protection to the residents by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala to take prompt action to curb the menace of stray dogs. Every individual is entitled to live in a safe and sound environment and it is the duty of the authorities to ensure the same.

Written by- Amrita Rout

Click here to read judgement

28 Jul

The legal consensus is that executive orders cannot be implemented retroactively- Punjab high court

Prime Legal

Blog #law, #punjabhighcourt, #ricemill

TITLE: Kissan Rice Mills V State of Punjab

Decided On-: July 24, 2023

CWP-473-2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Jasijth Singh Bedi

INTRODUCTION- By filing this petition pursuant to Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution, the petitioner is requesting the reversal of two orders: one in which the petitioner’s appeal was denied, and the other in which the director reduced the mill’s installed capacity.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In 2007, the petitioner built a rice mill. Guidelines dated 10.09.2007 regarding the calculation of rice mill capacity were in effect at that time. Based on directives the respondent determined the petitioner’s capacity. The mill’s 4 MT capacity was established. The fifth of the five parameters used to calculate a mill’s capacity is land. The instructions stated that the land might be leased close to the mill or owned by the owner of the mill. From 2007 to 2020, the petitioner’s capacity was assessed as 4 MT; however, in response to the complaint, the respondent reduced the petitioner’s rice mill’s capacity from 4 MT to 2 MT by order dated September 26, 2022 This Court limited the petitioner’s options to an appeal. A week after the petitioner appears before the relevant authority, the appellate authority was instructed to make a decision. When the petitioner appeared before the appellate authority, the appeal was ultimately dismissed by the order in question.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Knowledgeable counsel for the petitioner asserts that the rice mill was installed in 2007 in accordance with the regulations in force at the time. The petitioner was required to have 3.5 acres of land, which could either be leased or owned by the owners or partners, according to the instructions. By means of instructions dated 20.08.2010, which were provided, the instructions were changed in 2010 to specify that land should be owned by the owner or a partner and should not be leased. The capacity of the petitioner’s mill could not have been reevaluated by the respondent because the instructions were changed but not retroactively.

counsel for the respondents claims that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected due to parameters changed by instructions dated 20.08.2010 as well as due to the petitioner’s lack of the necessary plant and machinery. Because the State has the authority to amend its rules, the petitioner was obligated to follow the new rules.

The contested order regarding the land question is quashed in light of the aforementioned discussion and conclusions, but the parties are instructed to conduct a joint inspection of the machinery and plant. The respondents have four weeks from today to conduct a joint inspection. The respondent must swiftly pass a new order regarding capacity after completing physical verification.

Written by- Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgemnet

1 2 3 4