Latest news with #JagmohanBansal
Time of India
6 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
HC imposes Rs 50k cost on Haryana Police for denying job to ‘innocent' candidate
1 2 3 Chandigarh: In an indictment of senior Haryana Police officials, the Punjab and Haryana high court has imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the state for "scant regard" to court orders and denying a constable's job to a candidate who was already declared innocent in a criminal case. The court criticised officials for their "reprehensible attitude", procedural lapses, and blatant disregard for judicial directives. "This is a classic case of misuse of power and abuse of process of law. The officers dealing with the matter, despite repeated orders of this court, have shown a reprehensible attitude just to stick to their opinion. It shows they have scant regard for the orders of constitutional courts," the court observed in its detailed order. The selected candidate had to approach the court for the third time because of the denial of appointment by police authorities due to "mechanically prepared" verification reports. In its order released on Monday, the court also ordered that an appointment letter be issued to the candidate within two weeks. Justice Jagmohan Bansal passed these orders while allowing a petition filed by Surender, who sought to set aside an order dated April 16, whereby police authorities rejected his claim for the post of constable. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Market Volatility with Confidence Titan FX Sign Up Undo The petitioner cleared the selection process for constable recruitment advertised in Dec 2020, but was denied appointment due to a pending FIR registered in Aug 2021 in Punjab for cheating and related charges. The FIR was registered after the filing of his application. Though the investigating agency in Punjab later filed a supplementary challan declaring him innocent, and the trial court discharged him in Feb 2024, the Haryana police department refused to issue his appointment letter. This was despite multiple court orders directing state police to reconsider his case in view of Supreme Court directions in such cases. After examining the entire record of the case and hearing the parties, the court observed that it was evident the commandant, 2nd Battalion, Haryana Armed Police (HAP), was aware that the director bureau of investigation (BOI), Punjab, asked the SSP to discharge the petitioner in the criminal matter. He asked the SSP concerned of Punjab police to clarify whether charges were framed or not. "It is undisputed that the petitioner was already reported in column No.2 of the supplementary challan dated Dec 27, 2022, thus there was no question of framing charge… The Supreme Court has held that the authority should consider the nature of the offence, timing and nature of the criminal case, overall consideration of the judgment of acquittal, nature of query in the verification form, socio-economic strata of the individual, and other antecedents of the candidate. The respondent (Haryana Police) has not examined even a single aspect as mandated by the Supreme Court," the HC held while directing state police to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner.
Time of India
19-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
High Court to Haryana: Clarify on cops sentenced to month in jail
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has asked the home secretary of Haryana to clarify if any police authority or state govt can award punishment other than dismissal from service where police officers were awarded a sentence of more than one month by criminal courts. The HC has also directed the state govt to depute a nodal officer, who is conversant with cases relating to the police force, to assist the office of advocate general, Haryana. Justice Jagmohan Bansal passed these orders while hearing a matter in which it was noticed that a former sub-inspector of Haryana Police, who was convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment in a criminal case, was compulsorily retired from service instead of being dismissed from service. During the hearing of the matter, the HC also observed that no nodal officer from the police force was deputed to assist the office of AG, Haryana, which is the root cause of repeated adjournments and delays in the adjudication of cases. Hearing the matter, the court on July 15 directed the home secretary to appear before the court to assist with the matter. In compliance with the order, the state home secretary, Dr Sumita Mishra, appeared via videoconferencing. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You Villas in Dubai | Search Ads Get Info Undo On being confronted with Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short 'PPR'), as applicable to Haryana, regarding punishment other than dismissal from service to the cops sentenced for more than three years, the home secretary requested more time to respond. On being confronted with the fact that no nodal officer from the police force was deputed to assist the office of AG, Haryana, which is the root cause of repeated adjournments and delays in adjudication, she submitted she would discuss the issue with police authorities. On this, the HC granted time to the home secretary to respond to the queries by Aug 19. "In the meantime, the state of Haryana is directed to consider that a nodal officer, who is well-conversant with cases relating to the police force, is deputed in HC to assist the AG office. "
Time of India
02-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Punjab and Haryana high court declines to direct Punjab to appoint spy's son as Sub-Inspector, cites lack of policy
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has declined to direct Punjab to appoint a man as a sub-inspector (S-I) in the state police despite his father serving as an undercover agent and enduring a decade in a Pakistan prison following his capture for espionage. The court noted that in the absence of an established policy providing such appointments, it was not in a position to compel the state to act. Justice Jagmohan Bansal has passed the orders while dismissing a plea filed by Neeraj Sharma seeking directions to set aside the order dated Feb 7, 2024, and other orders of different dates whereby the Punjab govt rejected his representations for appointment as S-I in the state police. The petitioner claimed that his father, a spy with the Intelligence Bureau (IB), was apprehended by the Pakistan Army in Dec 1968. He was tried by a military court and awarded a sentence of 10 years. He was released in Dec 1974 and returned to India via the Wagah-Attari border, Amritsar. Through an application dated Aug 6, 2008, he requested then chief minister to help him like Kashmir Singh, a Hoshiarpur resident who was jailed for nearly 35 years in Pakistan on charges of spying and released in March 2008. Ferozepur deputy commissioner (DC), in a letter dated Nov 27, 2013, intimated that the monthly income of the family was around Rs 6,000 and they had only one house measuring 3 Marla. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Soluções de energia de confiança para Data Centers de IA Siemens Energy Learn More Undo On Dec 24, 2014, the CM sanctioned financial assistance of Rs 50,000. The petitioner submitted an application dated July 7, 2018, to the CM to give him a job like similarly situated persons. His father died on Oct 22, 2018. A communication took place between different authorities and ultimately, the petitioner, despite possessing qualifications of DPharmacy and BSc (medical), was offered the post of constable, which he took up. However, his pleas for appointment to the higher post of S-I were rejected. In his plea before the HC, his counsel submitted that the petitioner is a highly qualified person, and the state has offered Class-B posts to similarly situated persons. On the grounds of parity, the petitioner should be given the post of at least assistant sub-inspector instead of constable. Responding to the plea, the Punjab govt submitted that there is no policy of the state to make appointments as claimed by the petitioner. After hearing all the parties, the bench observed that the court, in the absence of an express or implied policy of the state govt, cannot direct authorities to consider the petitioner for a higher rank, especially when he has already been offered and appointed as a constable without complying with the terms and conditions applicable to the post. MSID:: 121570821 413 |
Time of India
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Governor, not President: HC flags grave error in HSSC exam evaluation
Chandigarh: The Punjab and has made it clear that it cannot turn a blind eye if a selection board has chosen an answer that cannot be accepted at all. According to the high court, if there is a doubt, the benefit of the doubt must go to the selection agency. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now However, in this case it would result in a casualty of merit, a miscarriage of justice, and a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the high court passed these orders while directing the (HSSC) to grant one mark to the petitioners who answered that the "Governor is the executive head of the state" in the examination for selection to posts of sub-inspectors (SI) in state police. The HSSC's expert committee opined that the "President is the executive head of the state".The high court held that Article 154 of the Constitution of India clearly provides that the governor is the executive head of the court further clarified that if any petitioner, after receiving marks for this question, scores more than the last selected candidate in their category, they would be issued an appointment letter irrespective of the vacant post. The state would either adjust to available posts or create supernumerary court also made it clear that in this case, there was no fraud, misrepresentation, or malpractice on the part of the already selected candidates; thus, their appointment would not be disturbed by this the exercise of judicial review on this issue, the HC observed that by exercising this power, which constitutes one of the most potent weapons in the armoury of the law, the judiciary seeks to protect citizens against the violation of their constitutional or legal rights or misuse or abuse of power by the state or its officersWhile setting a deadline of three months for the HSSC to complete the exercise, the HC also made it clear that only the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of this order, and it would not be available to any fence-sitter; otherwise, there would be no end to HSSC has been directed to consider the fact while assigning work to these members of the expert committee in the Jagmohan Bansal passed these orders while disposing of a petition filed by Mukul Punia and others. The petitioners appeared for the selection of the SI's post advertised in 2018. They completed the selection process but were left out of the . According to them, they were denied the marks for one question wrongly by the HSSC, despite the commission's answer being wrong.
Hindustan Times
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Can't infringe upon competent authority's right to prematurely retire an employee: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana high court has refused to interfere with the Punjab director general of police's (DGP) 2022 order of prematurely retiring an assistant sub-inspector, stating that it cannot infringe upon a competent authority's right. The bench of justice Jagmohan Bansal held that the appropriate authority may order to prematurely retire any officer if it is in the public interest. However, conditions, as spelt in the service rules, must be complied with. As per the Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975, the order should be passed by the appropriate authority, the authority must be of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, the employee should be given prior notice in writing, the employee must have completed 25 years of qualifying service or attained 55 years of age and in the absence of three months' notice, employee would be entitled to three months' salary. 'The power to prematurely retire is an absolute right of the appropriate authority. The petitioner, by the date of passing impugned order, had already completed 25 years of service. Thus, it is evident that the respondent complied with all the attributes of Rule 3 of 1975 Rules, except service of three months' notice. The petitioner is entitled to a salary of three months in the absence of notice,' it said while dismissing the plea. The petition was from one Sukhpal Singh from Ludhiana, who was prematurely retired in April 2020 by the Ludhiana police commissioner. Subsequently, the appeal went up to the DGP level but was dismissed in 2022. In the plea, he had argued that the order was passed in a mechanical manner and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The government counsel had submitted that if notice is not served upon the officer, he is entitled to three months' salary. The petitioner was having very bad service record, thus, under compelled circumstances, he was prematurely retired. The court found that show-cause notice was not served upon him, but the record suggests that his entire service record was considered. It was found that out of his 27 years and 11 months service, his 10 years' service was forfeited. He was awarded four major punishments and there are 17 bad entries. He remained absent from duty for 793 days. Now, he is facing criminal proceedings in an attempt-to-murder case registered in January 2020.
