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

SH. MEHNGA SINGH, EX-SUB INSPECTOR versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PAP, JALANDHAR CANTT. AND ORS.

Decided
1 September 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 244 · 1995 INSC 526

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. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Notice was issued on March 15, 1991 confined to the question of punishment.

p. 245, margin A

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 245, margin A

The appellant had unblemish record of service all ~hrough till 1989. Pursuant to the promotion given to him as Inspector, he was to deposit the service revolver and six live cartridges. It is his case that he had to share a room with two other colleagues as a consequence of which the revolver and six cartridges were lost and unaccounted for. Therefore, exclusive liability may not be appropriate.

p. 245, margin A

There is an element of possibility in the contention. In view of the previous unblemish record of service and the plausible explanation offered by the appellant, we are of the opinion that the extreme punishment of dismissal from service may not be warranted. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to modify the punishment of dismissal as one of compulsory retirement so that the appellant would be entitled to retiral benefits.

p. 245, margin C

The appeal is according allowed. There shall be a direction to the respondents to issue appropriate orders as directed above. Consequently, the appellant would be entitled to all the terminal benefits which must be computed and paid within six months from the date of receipt of this order. His pension is also directed to be released within the above period. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 245, margin D