{"id":136136,"date":"2009-08-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009"},"modified":"2017-02-09T16:16:56","modified_gmt":"2017-02-09T10:46:56","slug":"union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India And Others vs Om Parkash Bagri And Another on 13 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Union Of India And Others vs Om Parkash Bagri And Another on 13 August, 2009<\/div>\n
                        CWP No.2664-CAT of 2007                            -1-\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                                               CWP No.2664-CAT of 2007\n\n                                  DATE OF DECISION: August 13, 2009\n\nUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS                               ...PETITIONERS\n\n                                 VERSUS\n\nOM PARKASH BAGRI AND ANOTHER                            ...RESPONDENTS\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.\n       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR.\n\nPRESENT: MR. NAMIT KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS.\n         MR. BIPIN SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.\n\n\nASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             The Union of India is aggrieved of the order dated 7.11.2006<\/p>\n
(Annexure P-4) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh<\/p>\n
Bench, Chandigarh (for short ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the Original<\/p>\n
Application filed by respondent No.1 Om Parkash Bagri has been allowed<\/p>\n
and the order of dismissal has been modified into compulsory retirement.<\/p>\n
             Briefly the facts of the case are that respondent No.1 Om<\/p>\n
Parkash Bagri while working as Postal Assistant at Nai Mandi Post Office<\/p>\n
at Hisar is alleged to have made payments amounting to Rs.55,800\/-<\/p>\n
(inclusive of interest) of Kisan Vikas Patras (for short ‘KVPs’) on 15.6.1999<\/p>\n
and 17.6.1999, on the basis of NC-32 (application for transfer of KVPs from<\/p>\n
one post to another). The KVPs were issued by Shamli Post Office (U.P.)<\/p>\n
and payment of Rs.74,400\/- was made at Hisar Head Office on the basis of<\/p>\n
identity slips issued by Bareilly Cantt. Post Office without obtaining<\/p>\n
identification of the payees.\n<\/p>\n
             A departmental enquiry was instituted against respondent No.1
\n                         CWP No.2664-CAT of 2007                            -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
and the case was also reported to the Police and FIR No.332 dated<\/p>\n
23.7.1999 and FIR No.333 dated 4.8.1999, was registered at Hisar City<\/p>\n
Police Station for all the cases of bogus payments.\n<\/p>\n
            An enquiry into the charges was held by Sh. V.S. Jain, ASPO<\/p>\n
and the charges against respondent No.1 were held to be proved vide<\/p>\n
enquiry report dated 31.5.2001. Respondent No.1 submitted a representation<\/p>\n
dated 10.7.2001, which was considered by the disciplinary authority and<\/p>\n
vide order dated 31.7.2001, punishment of dismissal from service was<\/p>\n
imposed upon respondent No.1 vide order Annexure A-1. Being aggrieved<\/p>\n
of the said order, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal which was<\/p>\n
considered and dismissed by the appellate authority vide its order dated<\/p>\n
31.10.2002. Respondent No.1 also filed a revision petition which was also<\/p>\n
dismissed vide order dated 26.7.2003.\n<\/p>\n
            Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed O.A. No.1018-HR-2004<\/p>\n
challenging the orders of his dismissal, rejection of his appeal and revision<\/p>\n
which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide order Annexure P-4 and<\/p>\n
accordingly the order of dismissal has been set aside and instead respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 has been ordered to retire compulsorily. It is against this order that the<\/p>\n
present writ petition has been filed by the Union of India.<\/p>\n
            Counsel for the Union of India has argued that if an order is to<\/p>\n
be set aside on technical grounds, liberty is required to be given to the<\/p>\n
competent authority to proceed against the employee from that stage. It has<\/p>\n
further been submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the Union of<\/p>\n
India that the Tribunal has modified the order of dismissal into that of<\/p>\n
compulsory retirement, primarily on the ground that Sh. S.C. Sethi, who was<\/p>\n
the Deputy Post Master at the relevant time, has been awarded milder
\n                          CWP No.2664-CAT of 2007                          -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
punishment, whereas respondent No.1 has been given the extreme penalty<\/p>\n
of dismissal from service. It has been argued that Sh. S.C. Sethi was<\/p>\n
awarded the punishment of recovery of Rs.10,000\/- and reduction of pay for<\/p>\n
four months from Rs.7250\/- to Rs.7100\/-. On the basis of aforementioned<\/p>\n
facts it is argued that the punishment awarded to Sh. S.C. Sethi cannot be<\/p>\n
said to be mild.    As the charges leveled against respondent No.1 and<\/p>\n
Sh.Sethi were different, therefore, different punishments have been awarded<\/p>\n
to both these persons.\n<\/p>\n
            It has lastly been argued that it is a well settled proposition of<\/p>\n
law that under normal circumstances, the Court should not interfere in the<\/p>\n
quantum    of   punishment     unless   the   punishment     is   shockingly<\/p>\n
disproportionate to the offence committed and it pricks the conscious of the<\/p>\n
Court. Reliance in this regard has been placed on 2004(4) SCT 332, 2005<\/p>\n
(1) SCT, 745.\n<\/p>\n
            The arguments raised by the counsel for the Union of India<\/p>\n
have been controverted by the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent<\/p>\n
No.1. It has been argued that respondent No.1 made the payments on the<\/p>\n
basis of oral directions given by his immediate superior Sh. S.C. Sethi who<\/p>\n
was the Deputy Post Master. The payments of KVPs were duly approved<\/p>\n
and passed by Sh. Sethi and thus, as the orders were passed by the senior<\/p>\n
officer of respondent No.1, hence he was duty bound to comply with the<\/p>\n
same.\n<\/p>\n
            It has been also been argued that Sh. Sethi who was also<\/p>\n
proceeded against in connection with these payments was awarded the<\/p>\n
punishment of recovery of Rs.10,000\/- and reduction of pay for four months<\/p>\n
from Rs.7250\/- to Rs.7100\/-, whereas respondent No.1 has been
\n                         CWP No.2664-CAT of 2007                            -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
discriminated against as he has been awarded extreme penalty of dismissal<\/p>\n
from service.      Counsel for respondent No.1 has also highlighted the<\/p>\n
observations of the Tribunal wherein it has been held as under:-<\/p>\n
            “In the present case, we have noticed that it is not a case of any<\/p>\n
            financial gain to the applicant, when he misconducted for the<\/p>\n
            above charges or causing any financial loss to the State<\/p>\n
            Exchequer.        It is also not a case of withdrawal of amount<\/p>\n
            through forged documents. We have also observed that one Sh.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            S.C.     Sethi,     Dy.   Postmaster   burdened    with    higher<\/p>\n
            responsibilities as per Rules, has been awarded very minor<\/p>\n
            punishment, while holding him guilty only for administrative<\/p>\n
            lapses.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            It is submitted that as no financial loss of any kind was caused<\/p>\n
to the State Exchequer nor there was any financial gain to respondent No.1<\/p>\n
and hence the setting aside of the order of dismissal from service and<\/p>\n
ordering respondent No.1 to retire compulsorily is just and fair and calls for<\/p>\n
no interference.\n<\/p>\n
            Counsel for the respondent No.1 has also placed reliance on the<\/p>\n
case of Sh.R.C. Indora relating to release of KVPs and NSCs in which there<\/p>\n
were similar allegations against Sh. Indora as in the present case. He was<\/p>\n
also ordered to be dismissed from service.         However, the revisional<\/p>\n
authority vide order dated 31.8.2004, set aside the order of his dismissal<\/p>\n
from service and instead allowed him to retire compulsorily.<\/p>\n
            We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and<\/p>\n
have perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
            A perusal of the aforementioned facts clearly shows that apart
\n                        CWP No.2664-CAT of 2007                           -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
from respondent No.1, Sh. S.C. Sethi, who was the Deputy Post Master at<\/p>\n
Hisar was also responsible for the misconduct. The payments against KVPs<\/p>\n
were virtually made on the directions of Sh. S.S. Sethi. The KVPs were<\/p>\n
duly approved by Sh. S.C. Sethi and he was awarded the punishment of<\/p>\n
recovery of Rs.10,000\/- and reduction of pay for four months from<\/p>\n
Rs.7250\/- to Rs.7100\/-, whereas, respondent No.1 has been awarded penalty<\/p>\n
of dismissal from service. It is, thus, clear that the punishment awarded to<\/p>\n
the two officers who misconducted themselves in making payment of KVPs<\/p>\n
was different. One officer has been let off lightly whereas, the other has<\/p>\n
been dealt with the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. We find that<\/p>\n
the Tribunal has rightly balanced the disproportionate punishment meted out<\/p>\n
to respondent No.1 and has modified the punishment to that of compulsory<\/p>\n
retirement w.e.f. 31.7.2001.\n<\/p>\n
            Apart from the above, another officer Sh. R.C. Indora who was<\/p>\n
working as Postal Assistant was ordered to be dismissed from service,<\/p>\n
however, the revisional authority had converted the punishment of dismissal<\/p>\n
to that of compulsory retirement. It is pertinent to mention here that there<\/p>\n
were similar allegations against Sh. Indora also. Thus, we see no reason<\/p>\n
why respondent No.1 should not be allowed to retire compulsorily.<\/p>\n
            Further, a perusal of the findings of the Tribunal clearly shows<\/p>\n
that no financial loss has been caused to the Exchequer nor respondent No.1<\/p>\n
has got any illegal gains by virtue of his misconduct. It is also not a case<\/p>\n
where some amounts have been withdrawn by way of forging documents.<\/p>\n
Thus, although there is no doubt that respondent No.1 had misconducted<\/p>\n
himself in making payments against KVPs, but the punishment of dismissal<\/p>\n
from service for such a conduct is definitely disproportionate to the gravity
\n                         CWP No.2664-CAT of 2007                           -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
of guilt of delinquent and is too harsh.\n<\/p>\n
             The argument raised by the counsel for the Union of India that<\/p>\n
the Court should not interfere in the quantum of punishment imposed upon<\/p>\n
the delinquent, is also without merit. It is a well settled law that the Court<\/p>\n
can always look into the aspect of punishment if the same is<\/p>\n
disproportionate to the gravity of guilt of the delinquent and is<\/p>\n
unconscionable and too harsh. In Punjab State Co-operative Supply and<\/p>\n
Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and<\/p>\n
another, reported as 2008(3) SCT 107, it has been held that “a person who<\/p>\n
is appointed by the authorities on a higher rank and gets more salary<\/p>\n
cannot be simply let of by saying that he was a mere supervisor. He being<\/p>\n
overall incharge is as much guilty of the charge as the workman-<\/p>\n
respondent herein. The workman could not be treated differently than the<\/p>\n
supervisor.” In Dev Singh vs. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation<\/p>\n
Ltd.,<\/a> reported as AIR 2003 SC 3712, it has been held by the Apex Court that<\/p>\n
“the Courts will not ordinarily interfere in the punishment imposed in the<\/p>\n
disciplinary proceedings to substitute its own conclusion on penalty, except<\/p>\n
where the punishment imposed is found to be shockingly disproportionate<\/p>\n
to the misconduct proved against the delinquent.” To the same effect were<\/p>\n
the views of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport<\/p>\n
Corporation and others Vs. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and others, reported as<\/p>\n
2000(3) SCC 450.\n<\/p>\n
             In the present case, Sh. S.C. Sethi who was also proceed<\/p>\n
departmentally on the same charges as respondent No.1, has been awarded a<\/p>\n
much lighter punishment whereas, punishment of dismissal from service has<\/p>\n
been imposed on respondent No.1. Not only this, even in the case of
\n                         CWP No.2664-CAT of 2007                         -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
another officer Sh. Indora, against whom there were similar charges as<\/p>\n
respondent No.1, was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement<\/p>\n
and thus, it is clear that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed<\/p>\n
upon the applicant-respondent No.1 was disproportionate to the misconduct<\/p>\n
committed by him.\n<\/p>\n
            We find no infirmity in the impugned judgement and<\/p>\n
accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                         (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)\n                                               JUDGE\n\n\n\nAugust 13, 2009                               (NIRMALJIT KAUR)\nGulati                                            JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Union Of India And Others vs Om Parkash Bagri And Another on 13 August, 2009 CWP No.2664-CAT of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2664-CAT of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: August 13, 2009 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …PETITIONERS VERSUS OM PARKASH BAGRI AND ANOTHER […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136136","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India And Others vs Om Parkash Bagri And Another on 13 August, 2009 - 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\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India And Others vs Om Parkash Bagri And Another on 13 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-09T10:46:56+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\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India And Others vs Om Parkash Bagri And Another on 13 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-09T10:46:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1717,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Union Of India And Others vs Om Parkash Bagri And Another on 13 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-09T10:46:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India And Others vs Om Parkash Bagri And Another on 13 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Union Of India And Others vs Om Parkash Bagri And Another on 13 August, 2009 - 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\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India And Others vs Om Parkash Bagri And Another on 13 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-09T10:46:56+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\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India And Others vs Om Parkash Bagri And Another on 13 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-09T10:46:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009"},"wordCount":1717,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009","name":"Union Of India And Others vs Om Parkash Bagri And Another on 13 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-09T10:46:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-om-parkash-bagri-and-another-on-13-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India And Others vs Om Parkash Bagri And Another on 13 August, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/136136","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=136136"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136136\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136136"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136136"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136136"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}