Karamjit Singh v. State Of Punjab Andors
!" "#$%$&'
) * +,$!-$&./ "!$!$&"* 0"*%1% -! !" 1&, 2 &3!/"*% "%4&3"&!%
!
"""
!
# $ % ). '( )')'
,/- % #((& )''# )0 % )# ## )'#(
) +% ₹ '# '# #((& ! + 1/''2,
% )'##
% 0# '0 )'#( 3 ,)- % ! ₹ ₹ '# '# #((& 144'2, 1/''2,
+ % +
%
! % + % + !
$ % % ! +
3 % ₹ +% ! 1/''2,
% 0# '0 )'#(
%
& 6 + %
%
7
9%
: % 2 %
6 % %%
%% #((&
,,! / % :
+
$ ;<!
$
= ))&4 )'## " # $
"%"& '
(
)
"*
$
+, &) ( ) "
' *
) "
- )'#&*#)-
)'1 #/ '4 )'#&
= (1#/ )'#( , #..") / $ * $
) ) "
'
".
/ ) "
)'#( *#)- >3 ).0 #0 #) )'#( ! % %
#..") / $ * $ $
*&!
, ?15. In the present case, even if one assumes that Surender Chaudhary, the accused in the pending criminal case was involved and had sought to indulge in objectionable activities, that ipso facto could not have resulted in unilateral action of the kind which the State resorted to against Daffodils, which was never granted any opportunity of hearing or a chance to represent against the impugned order. If there is one constant lodestar that lights the judicial horizon in this country, it is this: that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing, and prior intimation of such a move. This principle is too well entrenched in the legal ethos of this country to be ignored, as the state did, in this case.
16. The High Court, in the opinion of this court, fell into error in holding that in matters of award of public contracts, the scope of inquiry in judicial review is limited. Granted, such jurisdiction is extremely circumscribed; no doubt the court had refused to grant relief to Daffodils against its plea of wrongful rejection of its tender. However, what the impugned judgment clearly overlooks is that the action of the state, not to procure indefinitely, on an assumption of complicity by Daffodils, was in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice."
.
%
" $
*&!
, "19. The compliance of natural justice in domestic/disciplinary inquiry is necessary has long been established. This Court has held that even there are no specific statutory rule requiring observance of natural justice, the compliance of natural justice is necessary. Certain ingredients have been held to be constituting integral part of holding of an inquiry. The Apex Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workmen reported in (1964) 3 SCR 616 has laid down following:
"... An enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless, (i) the employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him, (ii) the witnesses are examined - ordinarily in the presence of the employee - in respect of the charges, (iii) the employee is given a fair opportunity to cross examine witnesses, (iv) he is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter, and (v) the inquiry officer records his findings with reasons for the same in his report."
@ % '# '# #((& ! %
#'
% ! !
=
!
A
- &3/ 5 0%-! !" 1&, 2 &3!/"*%6 77 -(896
## $ !
%
A
0.
".
+- 1234 35!
' !
5666
% -/""+ :%# %"%14*
, "The jurisprudential basis for grant of interest is the fact that one person's money has been used by somebody else. It is in that sense rent for the usage of money. If the user is compounded by any negligence on the part of the person with whom the money is lying it may result in higher rate because then it can also include the component of damages (in the form of interest). In the circumstances, even if there is no negligence on the part of the State it cannot be denied that money which rightly belonged to the petitioner was in the custody of the State and was being used by it." #) B% ! ). '( )')'
,/-
,
% ! % % : !2 ,, ! % &D
% : #0 !
#1 % 1;< 6
- -- kanchan
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No