Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

TEJPAL SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Decided
1 February 2007
Judges listed
AR. LAKSHMANAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 138 · 2007 INSC 90

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 139, margin A

2

Heard both sides. The appellant Tej Pal Singh is also present Court. In this matter, a penalty of removal from service was imposed on appellant. Against the removal order, the appellant filed an appeal, which dismissed. Later he challenged the said order before the Tribunal and further review was also filed. The Tribunal and the Reviewing Authority have also dismissed the respective petitions. Thereupon, he moved a writ petition invoking jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court also, for the reasons set out at page 4 & 5 of its order, dismissed the writ petition. We have perused the order passed by the High Court and other connected records.

p. 139, margin A

3

When the matter came up for hearing on 18.10.2006, this Court passed the following order: "Prima facie, we are of the view that the petitioner had not been afforded proper opportunity to defend himself inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer had refused to summon the witnesses cited by the workman. The dispute has been going on for the last 15 years. It would be in the interest of justice to start the proceedings all over again. have suggested to the counsel for .the parties to settle the dispute · which they seek time. Adjourned by four weeks."

p. 139, margin C

4

Again the matter was listed before this Bench on 15.11.2006, when the court passed the following order: "A letter is circulated by Mr. Praveen Jain, Advocate for petitioner that the settlement between the parties is likely to take some more time and hence he requested that the matter may adjourned by six weeks. Learned ASG appearing on behalf of respondent-Union of India also made the similar request according to him, the competent authority who has to approve the terms of settlement is not available now. The matter adjourned by four weeks for reporting settlement."

p. 139, margin E

5

Today, the matter is listed before us for reporting settlement.

p. 139, margin G

6

Learned counsel appearing the respondent, submitted that even almost all the forums, the respondents, also as per the directions of this sympathetic ground and are ready of Rs.1672/- p.m. for the last Rs.2,00,640/-. In our opinion, the

p. 140, margin A

7

We, therefore, direct the respondent no.2 to pay a sum of full quit of all the claims by the appellant. shall not be entitled to any other respondents are directed to pay the from today, failing which the said date of payment. The said sum ofRs.3 Draft payable at Kapurthala and drawn namely, Tej Pal Singh. The appellant from the respondent-in-person.

p. 140, margin B

8

The appeal is disposed off N.J.

p. 140, margin D