KULDIP SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Once the disciplinary and appellate authorities accepted the appellant's confession as voluntary and true, and validly invoked Article 311(2) proviso (b) citing impracticability of enquiry, Supreme Court will not interfere; strict rules of evidence do not apply to departmental enquiry, and High Court’s finding is justified.
- Parties
- Appellant: Kuldip Singh; Respondents: State of Punjab and Others
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 16 September 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismissal of Writ Petition
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal of Police Officer, Departmental Enquiry, Dispensing With Enquiry Under Article 311, Voluntariness of Confession, Admissibility of Evidence in Departmental Proceedings
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kuldip Singh
Appellant
State of Punjab and Others
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismissal of Writ Petition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether dismissal without enquiry under Article 311(2) proviso (b) was justified
- 2 Admissibility and voluntariness of confession made to police in departmental proceedings
Ratio Decidendi
Once the disciplinary and appellate authorities accepted the appellant's confession as voluntary and true, and validly invoked Article 311(2) proviso (b) citing impracticability of enquiry, Supreme Court will not interfere; strict rules of evidence do not apply to departmental enquiry, and High Court’s finding is justified.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed. No costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment