Gurnam Singh v. State Of Haryana And ANR
! " !
!#$%&'!%( ) & *++ ,- #. /0 +++11%22# $ 4%-),) $#$%&'#-5# ## 6# &$0%- +++ %)1& 6% $) * 7 8 +
!!!
" #$ %& '%'$ () *)
) )
, #$ %& '%'$ () "
)) ) "
#-.% * "
) )
/ #-.%
* "
") "
" 0)"%- #'
'%## () ) * "
"
)1)
0)"%.
%2 '%#' () 0)"%- #'
'%## () )
( 1)
* 0 3 '$ %# #242 5 " 6)'%%7" )* " )) 8 )
"
) " 1) 91) , ) '& %4 '%%7 )* +
) * ) ) %4 %2 '%%7 " *
"
* %'
%# '%%.
* / %4 %7 '%%.
,
%4 %2 '%%7"
)1)
" * (
() "
) "" " ""
), )0 "
: ) ) () *& 0)"%- #'
'%##* ) )
)
"" 8
") : )) * ) ) , * " " ) )") " )
()) " "" * ")1)
(
() " ) *
0)"%- #'
'%## () ; """ " 0)" ()* %.
%2 '%'#$ ")
<)* ")
0) =
* ") " " 1)
, " 1) ")* " ,1) " " * " " 1) " 1)
<)* ))
" ")
* ) ) * ""
: " "
) ) ) +
* ) )) "
"
)
> ) ) )) : ) ) ) ) )" )) ) "" ) "" 0)" ?)():
9
!" #$%
#% ## #227
0)" ))* @We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in modifying the punishment while concurring with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. The High Court failed to bear in mind that the first respondent was a police constable and was serving in a disciplined force demanding strict adherence to the rules and procedures more than any other department. Having notices the fact that the first respondent has absented himself from duty without level on several occasions, we are unable to appreciate the High Court's observation that 'his absence from duty would not amount to such a grave charge'.
Even otherwise on the facts of this case, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the punishment holding that 'the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the charge' especially when the High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. No case for interference with the punishment is made out.
) ) ) ) ) "
") ) ) "
" "
) ) *
() ) )) " ()
" "
:
" " ) " "" *
* )
: ) #%
:
#% )) ) )
"
"#%
" , " "#%
" ) ) "
) ") )
"#%
)
)" ) "
"#%
") 0
"
) " ()
()")
"
1- 2; !