Supreme Court of India
BIR SINGH CHAUHAN versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
- Decided
- 7 July 1997
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 460 · 1997 INSC 524
- Also cited as
- (1997) 6 SCC 282
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.
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. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 460, margin F
The learned counsel for the respondent was directed to produce the record and to file the counter; but neither counter has been filed nor the record has been produced. In these circumstances, we are constrained to proceed on the basis of the material on record.
p. 460, margin F
The appellant, while he was working as Executive Engineer, was asked by the Superintending Engineer to carry out the visual inspection of the work executed at Sonepat Drainage Division on April 30, 1989. He carried on the same on May 2, 1989 and submitted the report. Subsequently, a case was registered against the contractors and o~her employees. On the basis of subsequent report submitted by Shri O.P. Vij, an FIR was registered on August 10, 1989 against the officers connected with the job. Thereafter, the entire staff comprising of 95 persons in Kamal Drainage Circle, was put under suspension in April 1990. On account thereof, the appellant was also kept under suspension for giving the report of visual inspection vis-a-vis the execution of the work. After his reinstatement, he was due for promotion but the same was not given, while his juniors were promoted. Consequently, he challenged his non-consideration for promotion by way of writ petition which has been dismissed by the High Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
pp. 460–461, margin G
We wanted to examine the record to ascertain whether there is any substantial case against the appellant. The respondents have neither filed counter nor produced the record. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to accept the case of the appellant that he is entitled to be considered for promotion under the Rules. We direct the Government to consider his case for promotion on the basis of his service record within four months from the receipt of this order. While doing so, the Government will exclude the material relating to his inspection report.
p. 461, margin C
The appeal is acco~dingly allowed. No cost~. G.N. Appeal allowed.
p. 461, margin D