Dismissed

Bimla Devi v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Aug 2010LPA/1293/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an appeal against the reversion of an ASI from Sub Inspector to Assistant Sub Inspector following a proven departmental inquiry for accepting illegal gratification. The bench held the punishment did not suffer legal infirmity.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the order of reversion passed against the appellant was upheld.

Bimla Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

LPA No.1293 of 2009(O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

LPA No. 1293 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision4 .8.2010

ASI Bimla Devi

... Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶9

... Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

¶11

Present: Mr. S.N.Yadav ,Advocate for the appellant

¶12

1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶13

2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?

¶14

M.M.KUMAR, J.

¶15

The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 17.2.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 2230 of 2009. The appellant has been awarded the punishment of reversion from the post of Sub Inspector to that of Assistant Sub Inspector. She was charge-sheeted for accepting illegal gratification. In a regular departmental inquiry, the allegations were proved. The witnesses deposed before the inquiry officer that since ill gotten money has been paid back to them they did not want to prosecute the complaint. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that the appellant has been treated lightly as punishment of reversion alone has been awarded to her.

¶16

Having heard the learned counsel we are satisfied that the order of reversion passed by the authorities of the respondent- state does not suffer from any legal infirmity and the view taken by the learned Single Judge deserves to be upheld. The menance of corruption is spreading even

¶17

LPA No.1293 of 2009(O&M) 2

¶18

amongst the employees of fair sex as is illustrated by this case. There was a time when it used to be believed that employees belonging to the fair sex do not indulge in these type of practices. However, that belief has also suffered a setback on account of such like illustration. There is thus no merit in the

¶19

appeal. Dismissed.

¶20

(M.M.Kumar) Judge

¶21

(A. N. Jindal ) 4.8.2010 Judge

¶22

okg

Bimla Devi v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimla Devi v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Ors. Vs Brig Ms Kalra

Brij Bhushan Kaurshik Vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh & Ors.

Gali Chand Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Smt. Tej Kaur

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs Harbir Singh Dhillon

Harbans Lal Vs Labour Court, Jalandhar and Ors.