Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


SHAMSHER SINGH v. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, FEROZEPUR - LPA-1044-1992 [2005] RD-P&H 335 (23 December 2005)

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

Latters Patent Appeal No.1044 of 1992.

Date of decision : 11.1.2006.

Shamsher Singh ... Appellant.


District & Sessions Judge, Ferozepur ... Respondent.

Coram:Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S.Bedi.

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Kiran Anand Lall.

Present: Mr.Gaurav Chopra,Advocate,for the appellant.

Mr.A.S.Grewal,Additional Advocate General,Punjab.



The present Latters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 23.7.1992.

The facts of the case are as under:

Appellant Shamsher Singh, Ahlamd in the court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Zira, was found guilty of misconduct by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, in his order dated 7.7.1988 made under Section 349 of the Latters Patent Appeal No.1044 of 1992. (2) ******

Cr.P.C. and he was admonished and warned to be careful in future. On the basis of this order, the District & Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, served a notice on the appellant, calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. The appellant was, thereafter, removed from service vide order dated 3.10.1988, Annexure P3, to the petition. The appellant, thereafter, filed Criminal Misc. No.9064/M of 1988, challenging the order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge made under Section 349 Cr.P.C. The petition was accepted and the aforesaid order was set aside. The writ petitioner thereafter filed Civil Writ Petition No.2017 of 1989 seeking a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with full back wages. The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 23.7.1992 held that in the light of the fact that the order made under Section 349 Cr.P.C. had been set aside by the High Court, the very basis of the order against the writ petitioner ceased to exist and the order of removal from service had therefore to be set aside. The court quashed the order Annexure P3 but further observed that as the writ petitioner had not worked on the post of Ahlmad from 3.10.1988 the relief of arrears could not be given to him as there appeared to be some misconduct on his part. It is against this part of the judgment that the present appeal has been filed.

Mr.Gaurav Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that very basis of the order of removal from service having been set aside by the High Latters Patent Appeal No.1044 of 1992. (3) ******

Court in Criminal Misc. No.9064/M of 1988, there was no justifiable reason to deny the arrears of salary to the appellant.

Mr.A.S.Grewal, learned Additional Advocate General has, however, argued that the appellant was guilty of misconduct not only in the present case but in several other cases as well and has placed on record the written statement and some documents at the stage of the appeal.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

The learned Single Judge has observed that the order under Section 349 Cr.P.C. having been set aside by the High Court, the order of removal from service of the appellant could not be sustained and it was, accordingly, set aside.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that it must be held that the appellant was not guilty of any misconduct and the denial of arrears to him was thus clearly unjustified. We also observe that other acts of misconduct referred to by the learned Government counsel cannot justify the denial of the arrears to the appellant in the present proceedings. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and direct that the payment of arrears of pay and allowances for the period from 3.10.1988 i.e. the date of his removal from service to 23.7.1992 i.e. the date of his reinstatement, shall be released to him forthwith, subject to his furnishing a certificate that he had not been gainfully employed during this period. We further direct that all Latters Patent Appeal No.1044 of 1992. (4) ******

consequential reliefs which the appellant would be entitled to as a result of the order Annexure P3 being quashed would also be released to him.

Dasti order.



11.1.2006. (Kiran Anand Lall)

vs. Judge.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.