SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(SC) 367

A.S.ANAND, J.S.VERMA, L.M.SHARMA
Bhoop Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Advocates:
A.P.SINGH, GOBINDA MUKHOTY, K.N.Rai

JUDGMENT

VERMA, J.:- The petitioner was appointed a constable in the Delhi Armed Police in 1964. A large number of police constables participated in a mass agitation on April 14, 1967. The services of the agitating police constables were terminated on that account without specifying that reason for the termination. The petitioner claims that his service was similarly terminated on 3-8-1967 due to his participation in the agitation with other police constables. Apart from terminating their services, many of those police constables were also prosecuted. It appears that as a result of the demand by some Members of Parliament, many of the dismissed constables were taken back in service as fresh entrants and the Home Minister also directed withdrawal of prosecution against them. Some of the dismissed constables who were not taken back in service even as fresh entrants filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court in 1969 and 1970 which were allowed by the High Court on October 1, 1975 quashing the orders of termination of those petitioners. Subsequent,ly, some other constables whose services were similarly terminated also filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court in 1978 which too were











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top