{"id":120651,"date":"2008-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-10-29T12:03:19","modified_gmt":"2018-10-29T06:33:19","slug":"state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"State Of Punjab vs P.L. Singla on 31 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Punjab vs P.L. Singla on 31 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: R V Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
                                               1\n\n\n                                                                 Reportable\n                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4969 OF 2008\n                  (Arising out of SLP [C] No.13011 of 2006)\n\n\n\nState of Punjab                                                ... Appellant\n\n                                    Vs.\n\nDr. P L Singla                                                ... Respondent\n\n\n\n                                ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
R. V. Raveendran J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.    Leave granted. Heard the parties.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.    The respondent is a doctor in the service of the appellant – State of<\/p>\n
Punjab. On 1.8.1991, the respondent was transferred to Makandam. The<\/p>\n
respondent joined duty on 17.8.1991, but unauthorizedly absented himself<\/p>\n
from 1.6.1992. As he was absent for nearly five years, the Health and<\/p>\n
Family Welfare Department issued a charge-sheet dated 28.5.1997 to the<\/p>\n
respondent. The two charges were : (a) absenting from duty deliberately<\/p>\n
from 1.6.1992; and (b) disobeying the orders of official superiors. An
\n                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
enquiry was held into the said charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted his<\/p>\n
report. In regard to first charge, the Enquiry Officer found that the<\/p>\n
respondent had, in fact, absented himself unauthorisedly from 1.6.1992 to<\/p>\n
17.10.1997. But he accepted two explanations given by respondent and<\/p>\n
concluded that the absence was under compelling circumstances. The first<\/p>\n
explanation was that those were days of terrorism in Punjab. The second<\/p>\n
was that the respondent had sent by post an application seeking leave from<\/p>\n
1.6.1992 to 30.12.1992 and did not receive any refusal, and, therefore<\/p>\n
presumed that the leave had been granted. The Enquiry Officer also held<\/p>\n
that the second charge was not proved.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.    The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the enquiry report, for<\/p>\n
reasons recorded in a dissent note. The said note stated that unauthorized<\/p>\n
absence from 1.6.1992 to 17.10.1997 was clearly indiscipline; that only<\/p>\n
after the chargesheet was issued, the respondent had offered to join back<\/p>\n
duty (and in fact joined duty only on 18.10.1997) and not earlier. The<\/p>\n
dissent note therefore proposed to hold the respondent guilty of the two<\/p>\n
charges. A show cause notice dated 1.4.1999 was issued to the respondent<\/p>\n
enclosing a copy of the enquiry report and the dissent note. The respondent<\/p>\n
sent a reply dated 10.5.1999. The Governor of Punjab by order dated
\n                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
16.9.1999 (communicated on 11.10.1999) did not accept the findings in the<\/p>\n
Enquiry Report. For the reasons stated in the dissent note, he held the<\/p>\n
respondent guilty and imposed a punishment of withholding of five<\/p>\n
increments with cumulative effect.\n<\/p>\n
4.    By a subsequent order dated 25.1.2001, issued in continuation of the<\/p>\n
order imposing punishment, the Governor of Punjab accorded extra-<\/p>\n
ordinary leave to the respondent for the period 1.6.1992 to 17.10.1997. Two<\/p>\n
consequences followed as a consequence thereof under the Punjab Civil<\/p>\n
Service Rules. A government servant is not entitled to any salary during the<\/p>\n
period of extra-ordinary leave (vide Rule 8.122 of Vol 1) and the period of<\/p>\n
extraordinary leave is not counted as service qualifying for pension (vide<\/p>\n
Rule 4.7 of Vol. II).\n<\/p>\n
5.    The respondent filed a suit on 24.1.2002 in the court of the Civil<\/p>\n
Judge, Junior Division, Bhatinda for a declaration that the order dated<\/p>\n
10.9.1999\/11.10.1999 imposing punishment was null and void and for<\/p>\n
consequential reliefs. The trial court by judgment dated 14.9.2004, decreed<\/p>\n
the suit and declared that the order imposing punishment was void and that<\/p>\n
the respondent was entitled to all consequential benefits with interest at<\/p>\n
12% PA from the date of suit. The appeal filed by the State was dismissed<\/p>\n
by the first appellate court on 16.3.2005. The second appeal filed by the
\n                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
State was also dismissed on 20.1.2006. The said judgment of the High Court<\/p>\n
affirming the decisions of the trial court and first appellate court is<\/p>\n
challenged in this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
6.    The fact that the respondent had absented himself unauthorizedly<\/p>\n
from 1.6.1992 to 17.10.1997 was neither denied nor disputed by the<\/p>\n
respondent. The question was whether there were satisfactory reasons for<\/p>\n
his absence and failure to seek leave. The explanation was that he did not<\/p>\n
join duty as it was a period of terrorism in the State. The further explanation<\/p>\n
was that he had sent a leave application by post seeking leave for a period of<\/p>\n
seven months, that is from 1.6.1992 to 30.12.1992 and as he did not receive<\/p>\n
any reply rejecting his request, he assumed that the leave had been<\/p>\n
sanctioned.   Both the explanations were vague and unsatisfactory. The<\/p>\n
unauthorized absence for a long period of more than five years remained<\/p>\n
unexplained. Even in regard to the period 1.6.1992 to 30.12.1992 for which<\/p>\n
he claimed to have sent a leave application, there was nothing to show that<\/p>\n
such a leave application was sent or that it was received by the department.<\/p>\n
No proof was produced for having sent such an application. Grant of leave<\/p>\n
is not something that can be inferred or presumed. At all events, even<\/p>\n
according to respondent, there was no application for leave for the period<\/p>\n
31.12.1992 till 17.10.1997. There is also no explanation as to why he
\n                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
remained absent unauthorizedly for more than five years. Hence the charge<\/p>\n
of long unauthorized absence was clearly proved. The half hearted finding<\/p>\n
of the Enquiry Officer that there were compelling circumstances for the<\/p>\n
absence was clearly without any basis. The dissent note in regard to the<\/p>\n
charge of absence was, therefore, justified. The punishment imposed was<\/p>\n
not disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.<\/p>\n
7.    But the courts below have decreed the respondent’s suit not because<\/p>\n
they recorded any finding to the contrary, but for a reason wholly<\/p>\n
unconnected with the disciplinary proceedings and imposition of penalty.<\/p>\n
The three courts have held that as a result of the subsequent order of the<\/p>\n
Governor dated 25.1.2001 according extraordinary leave for the period of<\/p>\n
absence (1.6.1992 to 17.10.1997), the misconduct was wiped out. They<\/p>\n
have proceeded on the basis that when the employer accords extra-ordinary<\/p>\n
leave in respect of the period of absence, for which the punishment was<\/p>\n
imposed, the employer is deemed to have condoned the unauthorized<\/p>\n
absence. The courts below therefore, held that the unauthorized absence of<\/p>\n
respondent between 1.6.1992 and 17.10.1997 could no longer be considered<\/p>\n
as unauthorized absence, and when the misconduct was erased, the<\/p>\n
punishment therefor also stood erased. It is the correctness of this finding<\/p>\n
that arises for our consideration.\n<\/p>\n
                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
8.    Unauthorized absence (or overstaying leave), is an act of indiscipline.<\/p>\n
Whenever there is an unauthorised absence by an employee, two courses are<\/p>\n
open to the employer. The first is to condone the unauthorized absence by<\/p>\n
accepting the explanation and sanctioning leave for the period of the<\/p>\n
unauthorized absence in which event the misconduct stood condoned. The<\/p>\n
second is to treat the unauthorized absence as a misconduct, hold an enquiry<\/p>\n
and impose a punishment for the misconduct.\n<\/p>\n
9.    An employee who remains unauthorisedly absent for some period (or<\/p>\n
who overstays the period of leave), on reporting back to duty, may apply for<\/p>\n
condonation of the absence by offering an explanation for such<\/p>\n
unauthorized absence and seek grant of leave for that period. If the<\/p>\n
employer is satisfied that there was sufficient cause or justification for the<\/p>\n
unauthorized absence (or the overstay after expiry of leave), the employer<\/p>\n
may condone the act of indiscipline and sanction leave post facto. If leave is<\/p>\n
so sanctioned and the unauthorized absence is condoned, it will not be open<\/p>\n
to the employer to thereafter initiate disciplinary proceedings in regard to<\/p>\n
the said misconduct unless it had, while sanctioning leave, reserved the<\/p>\n
right to take disciplinary action in regard to the act of indiscipline. We may<\/p>\n
note here that a request for condoning the absence may be favourably
\n                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
considered where the unauthorized absence is of a few days or a few<\/p>\n
months and the reason for absence is stated to be the sudden, serious illness<\/p>\n
or unexpected bereavement in the family. But long unauthorized absences<\/p>\n
are not usually condoned. In fact in Security services where discipline is of<\/p>\n
utmost importance, even a few of days overstay is viewed very seriously.<\/p>\n
Be that as it may.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   Where the employee who is unauthorizedly absent does not report<\/p>\n
back to duty and offer any satisfactory explanation, or where the<\/p>\n
explanation offered by the employee is not satisfactory, the employer will<\/p>\n
take recourse to disciplinary action in regard to the unauthorised absence.<\/p>\n
Such disciplinary proceedings may lead to imposition of punishment<\/p>\n
ranging from a major penalty like dismissal or removal from service to a<\/p>\n
minor penalty like withholding of increments without cumulative effect.<\/p>\n
The extent of penalty will depend upon the nature of service, the position<\/p>\n
held by the employee, the period of absence and the cause\/explanation for<\/p>\n
the absence. Where the punishment is either dismissal or removal, it may<\/p>\n
not be necessary to pass any consequential orders relating to the period of<\/p>\n
unauthorized absence (unless the rules require otherwise).       Where the<\/p>\n
punishment awarded for the unauthorized absence, does not result in<\/p>\n
severance of employment and the employee continues in service, it will be
\n                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
necessary to pass some consequential order as to how the period of absence<\/p>\n
should be accounted for and dealt with in the service record.         If the<\/p>\n
unauthorized absence remains unaccounted, it will result in break in service,<\/p>\n
thereby affecting the seniority, pension, pay etc., of the employee. Any<\/p>\n
consequential order directing how the period of absence should be<\/p>\n
accounted, is an accounting and administrative procedure, which does not<\/p>\n
affect or supersede the order imposing punishment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.   In this case, the punishment was imposed by order dated<\/p>\n
16.9.1999\/11.10.1999. That order was not cancelled, revoked or withdrawn.<\/p>\n
The subsequent order dated 25.1.2001 merely accorded extraordinary leave<\/p>\n
in regard to the period of absence, but did not condone the unauthorized<\/p>\n
absence nor wipe out the punishment already imposed. The said order was<\/p>\n
only consequential to the imposition of punishment. Its effect was to<\/p>\n
maintain continuity of service of the respondent, but deny salary for the<\/p>\n
period of absence and not to count the period of absence as qualifying<\/p>\n
service for the purposes of pension. Its effect is certainly not to exonerate<\/p>\n
the respondent from the charge of unauthorised absence nor to wipe out the<\/p>\n
punishment. If the intention was to revoke the punishment, the order dated<\/p>\n
25.1.2001 would have clearly stated so. But it did not.\n<\/p>\n
                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
12.   The assumption by the courts below that when an order is passed<\/p>\n
according extra-ordinary leave for the period of absence, it will have the<\/p>\n
effect of effacing or erasing the punishment already imposed, is therefore<\/p>\n
incorrect and is a serious error of law.      When the trial court and the<\/p>\n
appellate court had committed this serious error, the High Court ought to<\/p>\n
have formulated an appropriate question of law and allowed the second<\/p>\n
appeal. Instead, it chose to dismiss the second appeal putting its seal of<\/p>\n
approval on a wrong interpretation of law leading to serious repercussions<\/p>\n
in regard to discipline and administration. The judgment of the High Court<\/p>\n
confirming the orders of the courts below, therefore calls for interference.<\/p>\n
13.     We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgments and<\/p>\n
decrees of the courts below and dismiss the suit of the respondent. Parties to<\/p>\n
bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                   …………………………J.<\/p>\n
\n                                                            (R. V. Raveendran)\n\n\n\nNew Delhi;                                          ............................J.\nJuly 31, 2008.                                      (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Punjab vs P.L. Singla on 31 July, 2008 Author: R V Raveendran Bench: R.V. Raveendran, Lokeshwar Singh Panta 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4969 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP [C] No.13011 of 2006) State of Punjab … Appellant Vs. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-120651","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Punjab vs P.L. Singla on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Punjab vs P.L. Singla on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-29T06:33:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Punjab vs P.L. Singla on 31 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-29T06:33:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1770,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008\",\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs P.L. Singla on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-29T06:33:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs P.L. Singla on 31 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Punjab vs P.L. Singla on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Punjab vs P.L. Singla on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-29T06:33:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Punjab vs P.L. Singla on 31 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-29T06:33:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008"},"wordCount":1770,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008","name":"State Of Punjab vs P.L. Singla on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-29T06:33:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-p-l-singla-on-31-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Punjab vs P.L. Singla on 31 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120651","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=120651"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120651\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120651"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120651"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120651"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}