{"id":152190,"date":"2006-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006"},"modified":"2018-08-02T06:23:11","modified_gmt":"2018-08-02T00:53:11","slug":"ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"Ranjit Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ranjit Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  346 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nRanjit Singh\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUnion of India & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/04\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
S.B. Sinha, J :\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Appellant herein was an Inspector, Central Excise and Customs,
\nNew Delhi.  As his father died in harness, he was appointed on
\ncompassionate grounds<\/p>\n
 \tA raid by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was conducted in
\nhis house on 29th November, 1990.  He was allegedly possessing assets
\ndisproportionate to his known source of income.  A criminal case was
\ninitiated against him by the CBI.  On or about 31.12.1991, a disciplinary
\nproceeding was initiated against him.  The charges framed against him were:\n<\/p>\n
“Article  1  That Shri Ranjit Singh during the
\nyear 1981-90 while working as a Government
\nServant in the capacity of Inspector Customs and
\nCentral Excise failed to maintain absolute integrity
\nand devotion to duty and acted in a manner
\nunbecoming of a Government servant inasmuch as
\nhe by exploiting his official position as a
\nGovernment servant acquired assets to the tune of
\nRs. 6,43,737.15 in his own name and in the name
\nof his family members which are disproportionate
\nto the known sources to his income.  During the
\nabove said period his total income from all known
\nsources comes to Rs. 5,54,924.10 p and the
\nexpenditure comes to Rs. 1,92,676.83 and the
\nassets disproportionate to the known sources of
\nincome come to the tune of Rs. 2,81,488.88 p.\n<\/p>\n
Thus, said Shri Ranjit Singh by his above acts of
\nomission and commission contravened provisions
\nof Rule 3 (1)(i)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct)
\nRules, 1964.\n<\/p>\n
Article  II  That Shri Ranjit Singh during the
\nsaid period while functioning in the above said
\ncapacity failed to maintain devotion to duty and
\nacted in a manner unbecoming of a Government
\nservant as much as he invested Rs. 60,000\/- in the
\npurchase of FDRs in his own name as well as in
\nthe name of his mother Smt. Leelawanti in Punjab
\nand Sind Bank, Vijayawada in 1981 without any
\nintimation to his department\/ Government as
\nrequired under Rule 18 (3) of the CCS (Conduct)
\nRules, 1964.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tA closure report was submitted by the CBI on 20th July, 2001.  In the
\ndepartmental proceeding, the Appellant adduced evidences on his behalf as
\nalso cross-examined witnesses examined on behalf of the Department.  The
\nEnquiry Officer submitted a report dated 26.9.1996 exonerating him from
\nthe said charges.  The Disciplinary Authority, however, differed with the
\nfindings of the Enquiry Officer and issued a memorandum on or about
\n17.2.1997 stating the reasons for his difference with the Enquiry Officer and
\ncalled upon the Appellant to make his representation in his defence to the
\ngrounds of disagreement before a final decision is taken stating:\n<\/p>\n
“Any representation which he may wish to make
\nagainst the tentative opinion will be considered by
\nthe undersigned independent of her tentative
\nopinion.  Such a representation, if any, should be
\nmade in writing and submitted so as to reach the
\nundersigned not later than 10 days from the date of
\nreceipt of this memorandum.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tBy a letter dated 13.3.1997, the Appellant prayed for grant of 10 days
\ntime.  The same was allowed.  Yet again on 25.3.1997, he prayed for further
\n10 days’ time to submit his representation which was also allowed.  It is,
\nhowever, not in dispute that on or about 7.4.1997, i.e., after the expiry of 10
\ndays time from 25.3.1997, he filed another application for granting 3-4 days
\ntime.  According to the Disciplinary Authority, the order of punishment was
\nalready prepared on 8.4.1997 whereas the said application dated 7.4.1997
\nreached its hand later.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe contention of the Disciplinary Authority in this behalf
\nfurthermore is that he was informed by an order dated 21.3.1997 that no
\nfurther opportunity would be granted to him.  The Disciplinary Authority
\ncontends that the said order was served on the Appellant but according to
\nhim he did not receive the same.\n<\/p>\n
The Appellant, however, submitted a memorandum on 10.4.1997
\nbefore the Disciplinary Authority stating in details as to why the conclusion
\nof the Enquiry Officer in his report should be upheld.  The said
\nmemorandum admittedly was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Disciplinary Authority by an order dated 8.4.1997 directed
\ndismissal of the Appellant from services stating:\n<\/p>\n
“The charges proved against the charged officer
\nare quite grave in nature.  The charged officer had
\nacquired assets disproportionate to his known
\nsources of income.  This highly unbecoming of a
\nGovt. servant and necessitate imposition of a
\nsevere penalty.  I, therefore impose penalty of
\nremoval from service on Sh. Ranjit Singh with
\nimmediate effect.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn support of the said order, however, no fresh reason was assigned.
\nThe Disciplinary Authority proceeded on the basis that as the Appellant had
\nbeen given an opportunity of hearing to submit his defence and as he had
\nfailed to do so, a presumption was drawn that he did not wish to comment on
\nthe grounds of disagreement.  It was stated:\n<\/p>\n
“The evidence proving disproportionate assets
\nhas already been discussed at length in the memo
\ndt. 17.02.97.  The same are unchallenged by the
\ncharged officer and nothing has come to the notice
\nof the undersigned to refute the evidentiary value
\nof the material discussed in the said memo.  The
\nreasons for not treating AC, RCR, Music System,
\nCTV & VCR as items having been fifteen\/ leaned
\nto Smt. Leelawanti by her relatives have already
\nbeen given in memo dt. 17.02.97.  As per my
\nfindings in this regard contained in the above said
\nmemo these items infact belonged to the charged
\nofficer and shall be treated as his assets.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe money spent on the construction of
\nhouse no. EA-68 Inderpuri has also been logically
\ndiscussed in above referred memo.  In the absence
\nof any objection from charged offer this is also
\nheld to correct calculation.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThus, as per discussion in the memo dt.\n<\/p>\n
17.02.97 an assets amounting to Rs. 1,15,873.62
\nowned by Sh. Ranjit Singh are held to be
\ndisproportionate to his known sources of income
\nand therefore charge I is held to be proved against
\nthe charged officer.”\n<\/p>\n
 \t  The Appellant thereafter preferred an appeal before the Appellate
\nAuthority being the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi against the said
\norder. The following points were framed by the said authority for
\nconsideration:\n<\/p>\n
“(i)\tWhether by not giving Sh. Ranjit Singh
\nextension of time, which had twice over expired,
\nprejudice has been caused to him, in other words,
\nwhether it amounts to denial of principles of
\nnatural justice in the circumstances of the case.”\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tWhether or not the conclusion arrived at by
\nthe Disciplinary Authority in her disagreement
\nwith the inquiry officer, who had property
\nevaluated the evidence and come to the conclusion
\nare in accordance with the test laid for
\ndepartmental inquiries namely preponderance of
\nprobability or not.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tOn the first point, the Appellate Authority opined in favour of the
\ndepartment.  On the second point, it was held:\n<\/p>\n
“Shri Ranjit Singh has agitated that his mother’s
\nproperty has been attributed to him, therefore, he
\nhas been wronged.  According to him, this point
\nhas been overlooked by the inquiry officer and also
\nby the Disciplinary Authority.  There is elaborate
\nfindings and discussion in IO report on the subject,
\nin the nature of circumstances of this case that
\nappears to be the most appropriate method.  I agree
\nwith the same and reject the contention of Shri
\nRanjit Singh in the appeal memorandum in this
\nregard.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Appellate Authority on the said premise agreed with the
\nobservations of the Disciplinary Authority that both the charges have been
\nestablished.\n<\/p>\n
 \tA revision filed thereagainst by the Appellant was also dismissed.
\nThe Revisional Authority used the same language as that of the Appellate
\nAuthority while passing the order dated 22.4.1999.\n<\/p>\n
An Original Application was filed by the Appellant before the Central
\nAdministrative Tribunal which was marked as OA No. 1106 of 2000.  The
\nsaid original application was dismissed only stating:\n<\/p>\n
“In UOI Vs. Upendra Singh (1994) 27 ATC 200
\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court has held the Tribunal
\ncannot take over the functions of the disciplinary
\nauthority.  The truth or otherwise of the charges is
\na matter for the disciplinary authority to go into.
\nIndeed even after the conclusion of the disciplinary
\nproceedings, if the matter comes to the Court or
\nTribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the
\ntruth of the charges or into the correctness of the
\nfindings rendered by the disciplinary authority, or
\nthe Appellate Authority as the case may be.  The
\nfunction of the Court\/ tribunal is none of judicial
\nreview, the purpose of which is to ensure that the
\nindividual receives fair treatment.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tA writ petition filed by the Appellant herein was summarily rejected
\nby the Division Bench of the High Court.  The Appellant is, thus, before us.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nAppellant has raised two contentions in support of the appeal.  The learned
\ncounsel would firstly submit that keeping in view of the fact that the
\nMunicipal Corporation of Delhi valued the residential house of the
\nAppellant at Rs.2,41,576\/- whereas the Executive Engineer appointed by the
\nCBI valued the same at Rs. 3,26,000\/- and, thus, the difference between the
\ntwo valuations being only Rs.84,426\/-, it cannot be said that the assets
\npossessed by the Appellant were disproportionate to his known source of
\nincome.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was further submitted that the Appellate Authority could have
\ngranted some time to the Appellant to file his show cause having regard to
\nthe fact that although he is said to have prepared his order on 8.4.1997, it
\nwas not dispatched from his office till then and in that view of the matter, it
\nmust be held that the principles of natural justice have been violated.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. T.S. Doabia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nRespondent, on the other hand, contended that the Executive Engineer of the
\nCBI was examined before the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of
\nproving his report on valuation of the residential building of the Appellant
\nand in that view of the matter, his report was admissible in evidence.  It was
\ncontended that from the order of the Appellate Authority, it would appear
\nthat a portion of the building was not valued by the MCD.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is not disputed that the Disciplinary Authority had issued a show
\ncause notice.  It is also true that pursuant to or in furtherance of the said
\nnotice, the Appellant did not file any show cause.  However, it stands
\nadmitted that a show cause was filed by the Appellant herein prior to
\ncommunication of the order.  The Disciplinary Authority states that the
\nAppellant was communicated the order dated 21.3.1997 that no further time
\nwould be granted, but the Appellant, on the other hand, contends that that he
\ndid not receive the same.  The Tribunal, before whom the said contention
\nwas raised by the respondent for the first time, did not go into the same nor
\nwas it established by or on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority that the said
\ncommunication dated 21.3.1997 reached the hands of the Appellant before
\nhe made a request for grant of 3-4 days’ further time by letter dated 25.3.97.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Disciplinary Authority did not arrive at any independent finding
\nfor passing the order of dismissal dated 8.4.1997.  He, as indicated
\nhereinbefore, proceeded on the basis that as the Appellant had not filed a
\nshow case, he must be held to have accepted the points on the basis whereof
\nthe Disciplinary Authority recorded his disagreement with the findings of
\nthe Inquiry Officer.  The Disciplinary Authority, however, failed to consider
\nthat the grounds on which he had disagreed with the Inquiry Officer forming
\nthe basis for issuing the show cause notice dated 17.2.1997, was a tentative
\none.  Only because the Appellant did not file a show cause, the same would
\nnot mean that he was not required to consider the materials brought on
\nrecords by the parties before the Disciplinary Authority, afresh.  He was
\nobliged to do so.\n<\/p>\n
In Punjab National Bank and Others v. Kunj Behari Misra [(1998) 7
\nSCC 84], this Court has clearly held that the principles of natural justice are
\nrequired to be complied with by the Disciplinary Authority in the event he
\nintends to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer observing:\n<\/p>\n
“The result of the aforesaid discussion would be
\nthat the principles of natural justice have to be
\nread into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof,
\nwhenever the disciplinary authority disagrees
\nwith the enquiry authority on any article of
\ncharge, then before it records its own findings on
\nsuch charge, it must record its tentative reasons
\nfor such disagreement and give to the delinquent
\nofficer an opportunity to represent before it
\nrecords its findings. The report of the enquiry
\nofficer containing its findings will have to be
\nconveyed and the delinquent officer will have an
\nopportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority
\nto accept the favourable conclusion of the
\nenquiry officer. The principles of natural justice,
\nas we have already observed, require the
\nauthority which has to take a final decision and
\ncan impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to
\nthe officer charged of misconduct to file a
\nrepresentation before the disciplinary authority
\nrecords its findings on the charges framed against
\nthe officer.”\n<\/p>\n
The said decision has been followed by this Court in State Bank of
\nIndia and Others v. K.P. Narayanan Kutty<\/a> [(2003) 2 SCC 447], wherein it
\nwas clearly held that in such an event the prejudice doctrine would not be
\napplicable stating:\n<\/p>\n
“6. In para 19 of the judgment in Punjab
\nNational Bank case extracted above, when it is
\nclearly stated that the principles of natural justice
\nhave to be read into Regulation 7(2) [Rule 50(3)(ii)
\nof the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff)
\nService Rules, is identical in terms applicable to
\nthe present case] and the delinquent officer will
\nhave to be given an opportunity to persuade the
\ndisciplinary authority to accept the favourable
\nconclusion of the enquiry officer, we find it
\ndifficult to accept the contention advanced on
\nbehalf of the appellants that unless it is shown that
\nsome prejudice was caused to the respondent, the
\norder of dismissal could not be set aside by the
\nHigh Court.”\n<\/p>\n
In view of the aforementioned decisions of this Court, it is now well
\nsettled that the principles of natural justice were required to be complied
\nwith by the Disciplinary Authority.  He was also required to apply his mind
\nto the materials on record.  The Enquiry Officer arrived at findings which
\nwere in favour of the Appellant.  Such findings were required to be over
\nturned by the Disciplinary Authority.  It is in that view of the matter, the
\npower sought to be exercised by the Disciplinary Authority, although not as
\nthat of an appellate authority, but akin thereto.  The inquiry report was in
\nfavour of the Appellant but the Disciplinary Authority proposed to differ
\nwith such conclusions and, thus, apart from complying with the principles of
\nnatural justice it was obligatory on his part, in absence of any show cause
\nfiled by the Appellant, to analyse the materials on records afresh.  It was all
\nthe more necessary because even the CBI, after a thorough investigation in
\nthe matter, did not find any case against the Appellant and thus, filed a
\nclosure report.  It is, therefore, not a case where the Appellant was
\nexonerated by a criminal court after a full fledged trial by giving benefit of
\ndoubt.  It was also not a case where the Appellant could be held guilty in the
\ndisciplinary proceedings applying the standard of proof as preponderance of
\nthe probability as contrasted with the standard of proof in a criminal trial,
\ni.e., proof  beyond all reasonable doubt.  When a final form was filed in
\nfavour of the Appellant, the CBI even did not find a prima facie case against
\nhim.  The Disciplinary Authority in the aforementioned peculiar situation
\nwas obligated to apply his mind on the materials brought on record by the
\nparties in the light of the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer.  He
\nshould not have relied only on the reasons disclosed by him in his show
\ncause notice which, it will bear repetition to state, was only tentative in
\nnature.  As the Appellate Authority in arriving at his finding, laid emphasis
\non the fact that the Appellant has not filed any objection to the show cause
\nnotice; ordinarily, this Court would not have exercised its power of judicial
\nreview in such a matter, but the case in hands appears to be an exceptional
\none as the Appellant was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer.  He filed a show
\ncause but, albeit after some time the said cause was available with the
\nDisciplinary Authority before he issued the order of dismissal.  Even if he
\nhad prepared the order of dismissal, he could have considered the show
\ncause as it did not leave his office by then.  The expression
\n“communication” in respect of an order of dismissal or removal from service
\nwould mean that the same is served upon the delinquent officer.  [See State
\nof Punjab vs. Amar Singh Harika, AIR<\/a> 1966 SC 1313]<\/p>\n
Even otherwise also the jurisdiction of a Disciplinary Authority to
\nconsider the matter would remain with him till it goes out of his hands which
\nwould mean the order is dispatched, as in the case of order of suspension.
\n[See Sultan Sadik v. Sanjay Raj Subba and Others,<\/a> (2004) 2 SCC 377]<\/p>\n
We are, therefore, of the opinion that interest of justice will be sub-
\nserved if the Disciplinary Authority is directed to consider the matter afresh
\nin the light of the show cause filed by the Appellant herein before him.  It
\nwill be desirable that an opportunity of personal hearing is also given to the
\nappellant herein.  We make it clear that although we are setting aside the
\norder of Disciplinary Authority and consequently all other orders, we direct
\nthat the Appellant shall be deemed to be under suspension till an appropriate
\norder is passed by the Disciplinary Authority.  The question of payment of
\nbackwages, it is directed, would depend upon the ultimate order that may be
\npassed by the Disciplinary Authority.  For the views we have taken, it is not
\nnecessary for us to consider the other contentions raised by Mr. Tripathi.\n<\/p>\n
This appeal is allowed to the afore-mentioned extent and the matter is
\nremitted to the Disciplinary Authority for consideration of the matter afresh
\nin the light of the observations made hereinbefore.  However, in the facts
\nand circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ranjit Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 346 of 2005 PETITIONER: Ranjit Singh RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/04\/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/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-152190","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRanjit Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006 - 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\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ranjit Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-02T00:53:11+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ranjit Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-02T00:53:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3061,\"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\\\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006\",\"name\":\"Ranjit Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-02T00:53:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ranjit Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Ranjit Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006 - 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\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ranjit Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-02T00:53:11+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ranjit Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-02T00:53:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006"},"wordCount":3061,"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\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006","name":"Ranjit Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-02T00:53:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ranjit Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006"}]},{"@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\/152190","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=152190"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152190\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152190"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152190"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152190"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}