HARDEEP SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

HARDEEP SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

The impugned removal order was punitive and cast a stigma, requiring compliance with Article 311(2) and Rule 16.24(ix)(b). Since these were not followed, order is arbitrary, illegal, and must be quashed. Petitioner is entitled to protection as probationer when dismissed by way of punishment.

Parties
Petitioner: Hardeep Singh; Respondents: State of Haryana & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 August 1987
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) No. 1615 of / Original Jurisdiction
Outcome
Petition allowed; impugned order quashed.
Legal Topics
Probationer Dismissal, Police Service Removal, Article 311(2) Protection

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hardeep Singh

Petitioner

State of Haryana & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) No. 1615 of / Original Jurisdiction

  1. 1 Whether removal of a probationary police constable for union activities without opportunity of hearing or enquiry is valid
  2. 2 Whether Article 311(2) of the Constitution protects probationers from punitive removal
  3. 3 Whether Rule 16.24(ix)(b) of Punjab Police Rules was violated

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned removal order was punitive and cast a stigma, requiring compliance with Article 311(2) and Rule 16.24(ix)(b). Since these were not followed, order is arbitrary, illegal, and must be quashed. Petitioner is entitled to protection as probationer when dismissed by way of punishment.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed; impugned order quashed.

Orders

  • Petitioner reinstated in service with 50% back wages from date of termination to date of reinstatement.
  • Entitled to full salary and allowances from date of reinstatement.