Court : Punjab and Haryana
CWP No.15639 o1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.15639 of 2013 Date of Decision :23. 7.2013 Dharamvir Malik .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents ..CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK ..Present : Mr.V.K.Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner..RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 3.4.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Lokayukta, Haryana-respondent no.2 and consequential proceedings initiated by the Director General, Secondary Education, Haryana-respondent no.3. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was received by the Lokayukta, Haryana against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner, while working as Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School, misappropriated an amount of ` 2,77,112/- on account of electricity bills, whereas the said amount had already been paid by his predecessORS.An enquiry was stated to be conducted against the petitioner. Forwarding a c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1970P& H40
Mehar Singh, C.J.1. This judgment will dispose of two petitions Nos. 2847 and 2399 of 1967 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In both the petitions Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, is the petitioner, but in petition No. 2847 of 1967 the second petitioner is Mr. Sajjan Singh Giani. To the two petitions the first three respondents are the same, that is to sav, Mr. Lachhman Singh Gill, Chief Minister, Punjab, the State of Punjab, and Mr. Kartar Singh Giani, who is a member of the Judicial Commission; and in petition No. 2899 of 1967 the fourth respondent is Mr. Sardul Singh, who was appointed a member of the Judicial Commission by Punjab Government Notification No. 462 Gurdwaras, of December 12, 1967.2. There were three members of the Judicial Commission appointed under Section 70 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act. 1925 (Punjab Act 8 of 1925) -- hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' --, namely, Mr. Sajjan Singh Giani petitioner, who was also its president, Mr. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1956P& H58
Bhandari, C.J.1. The principal point for decision, which has been somewhat obscured by the raising of a number of subsidiary issues, is whether the petitioner was denied the constitutional privilege of being heard before the order of dismissal was passed.2. The petitioner in this case is one Sardar Kapur Singh who until lately was a member of the Indian Civil Service and employed as a Deputy Commissioner in the Punjab in a substantive permanent capacity. He was placed under suspension on 13-4-1949 and a written statement of charges was handed over to him in due course. Weston J. the then Chief Justice of this Court was requested to hold an inquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, on 18-5-1950 and he submitted his report on 14-5-1951.He found that the petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 16,000/- and that he had knowingly permitted a certain contractor to cheat Government to the extent of Rs. 30,000/-. A copy of this report was supplied to the petitioner on 11-2-1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1988P& H1
D.S. Tewatta, J.1. Petitioner Shri J. K. Dhir, who at the relevant time happened to be Superintending Engineer, Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal Project (for short 'SYL Canal Project'), petitioner Shri A. K. Ummat, who at the relevant time happened to be Chief Engineer (Co-ordination) of the SYL Canal Project and petitioner Shri D. P. Singla, who retired as Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) on 30th April, 1986, and at the relevant time was associated with 'SYL Canal Project' asExecutive Engineer and was later on (on being promoted on 9th June, 1982),as Superintending Engineer (Administration) Accounts SYL Canal Project at Chandigarh, have through separate writ petitions (C. W:P. No. 6298 of 1986, C.W.P. No. 6558 of 1986 and C.W.P. No. 6308 of 1986, respectively) have impugned the validity of the initiation of the departmental inquiry and. its continuation at the instance of the Vigilance Department of the Punjab Government on the ground of its incompetency an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1955P& H1
ORDER1. This rule is obtained by the petitioner against an order of dismissal passed against him by the Punjab Government dated 25-8-1053 (Annexure 'Q' attached to the petition).2. The petitioner was a temporary Engineer, in the Irrigation Department and he was called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the service for having secured his appointment fraudulently by making a wrong statement in his application dated 9-9-1946 in which he stated that he had passed the examination of A. M. I. Mech. E. which as a matter of fact he had not passed. On 6-12-1950 the petitioner was charge-sheeted and in the statement of reasons relating to Charge No. 1 it was stated: 'In your application (or the post of a Temporary Engineer (Mechanical) in the P. W. D., Irrigation Branch, dated 9-9-46 under item No. 21 which reads as follows:'Give particulars of all Examinations passed and degrees and technical qualifications obtained at the University or other places of higher education or in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1955P& H03
ORDERKapur, J. 1. This is a rule obtained by Fyara Singh Mulla, who was at one time a Senior Clerk in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, for a writ of 'certiorari' and for a mandamus to quash the orders of the Punjab Government dismissing the petitioner and tor a direction to reinstate the petitioner.2. Pyara Singh Mulla was appointed a Senior Clerk on 5-10-1948 and on 30-7-1952 he was suspended by an order of Mr. Nawab Singh Chief Secretary of the Punjab Government and on the same day he was given a charge-sheet to put in his defence in regard to two matters -- (1) that he shouted at the Chief Secretary saying that he did not care for him, and (2) abused him filthily in public outside the Secretariat merely because he had been pulled up by the Chief Secretary for making a speech. Mr. Gian Singh Kahlon, the Home Secretary, was appointed the officer tit make the necessary enquiry under the rules.3. In support of one of the charges one Amar Chand, an Assistant Secretary in the Secretariat, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1957P& H173
Kapur, J.1. In these two cases (Civil Miscellaneous No. 194-C of 1935 and Supreme Court Appeal No. 2 of 1956) certain questions of law have been referred to a Full Bench by two different Division Benches. In Civil Miscellaneous No. 194-C of 1955 the following question has been referred--'When the High Court refuses to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, does the order of the High Court amount to a judgment or a final order within the meaning of Article 133 of the Constitution and does an appeal lie to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1)(a) or 133(1)(b) provided the subject-matter of the appeal is worth Rs. 20,000/- or more?'In the Supreme Court Appeal No. 2 of 1956 the two questions which have been referred are--(1) Whether an order passed by this Court de-clining to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution can be regarded as a judgment, decree or final order within the, meaning of Article 133? and(2) Whether the proceeding in which such an order is passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1958P& H141; 1958CriLJ673
A.N. Bhandari, C.J.1. By this petition under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the petitioner prays that S. Par-tap Singh Kairon, Chief Minister, Punjab, should be committed for contempt of court for interfering with a judicial enquiry pending before a Magistrate of the 1st class at Karnal.2. The petitioner is one Piara Singh, a resident of the Karnal district. He states that on 7-7-1957 a brutal murder was committed in village Rukhsana of the Karnal district in which Hazara Singh and Piara Singh sons of one Kirpa Singh were among the culprits. As this murder was one in a chain of murders committed by the gang of Hazara Singh in the Karnal district, the authorities concerned were deeply perturbed and had warrants of arrest issued against the culprits on 12-7-1957. While the police were looking for the perpetrators of the crime in all likely places the badmashes who are known to the Chief Minister went and took shelter under his roof. On 14-7-1957 Shri Asa Singh, Secretary to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1958P& H471; 1958CriLJ1529
Tek Chand, J.1. Three petitioners, Jai Parkash, Ram Krishan and Ram Gopal have presented this petition under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, praying that suitable action should be taken against respondents 1 to 9 who are alleged to have committed contempt of Court of Shri Om Parkash Aggarwal, Sub-Judge I Class, Jagadhri. The first petitioner and his three brothers were engaged in business at Jagadhri which they were carrying on in partnership in two firm names, i.e., Messrs. Massadi Mal Fateh Chand and Messrs. Parkash Metal Industries. The former partnership dealt in purchase and sale of non-ferrous metals while the latter used to manufacture utensils.On 22-7-1957, Rajinder Kumar one of the partners, sued the other partners and sought dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts. The suit was pending in the Court of Sub-Judge First Class, Jagadhri, Shri Om Parkash Aggarwal, arid on an application having been made by the plaintiff under Order 40, Rule 1, Civil Proce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1960P& H86
Grover, J. (1) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against two orders made on 7th April 1959 and 8th April 1959 by the Commission of Inquiry appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (to be referred to as the Act), the petitioners being Messrs. Allen Berry and Co. Private Limited and Shri Ram Krishan Dalmia.(2) By means of a Notification dated 11th December, 1956 the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under the Act appointed a Commission of Inquiry (hereinafter called the Commission) to enquire into the affairs of the petitioners and various other person and companies mentioned in the said Notification for the purposes specified therein.On the 9th January 1957 another Notification was issued providing that all the provisions of sub sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of S. 5 would apply to the Commission. On 12th February, 1957 three miscellaneous petitions were filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court at ...
Tag this Judgment!