{"id":166501,"date":"2009-10-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009"},"modified":"2015-12-10T01:35:05","modified_gmt":"2015-12-09T20:05:05","slug":"dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Mohinder Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 15 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Dr. Mohinder Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 15 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Civil Writ Petition No. 3424 of 1989                                         1\n\n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                        AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                                       Civil Writ Petition No. 3424 of 1989\n                                       Date of decision: 15.10.2009\n\nDr. Mohinder Singh                                           ...petitioner\n                                       Versus\n\nThe State of Haryana                                         ...respondent.\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH\n\n                       *****\n<\/pre>\n
Present:      Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with\n              Mr. Yashdeep Singh, Advocate\n              for the petitioner.\n\n              Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana\n              for the State.\n\n                     *****\n\nRANJIT SINGH J.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
              The petitioner, who was working as Medical Officer in the<\/p>\n
Health Department has filed this writ petition to impugn the order,<\/p>\n
Annexure P-7, whereby his period of suspension has been<\/p>\n
regularised to be counted as duty but still the petitioner is held<\/p>\n
entitled to subsistence allowance only during the period of<\/p>\n
suspension. The petitioner was placed under suspension on<\/p>\n
2.4.1985, which was made effective w.e.f. 10.4.1985, that being the<\/p>\n
date when this order was conveyed to him.\n<\/p>\n
              It was alleged that the petitioner was found in a drunken<\/p>\n
condition and refused to check up some of the accused. For this, the<\/p>\n
petitioner was charge sheeted.               The perusal of the charge sheet<\/p>\n
would show that one Narinder Singh, made an attempt to enter into<\/p>\n
Nursing Hospital at Bhiwani in the drunken condition.                  He        was<\/p>\n
brought to the General Hospital at 7.30 p.m. At that time, Sh.C.M.
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 3424 of 1989                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
Gupta, Medical Officer was on duty but was busy in operation<\/p>\n
theater. The petitioner was on night duty and accordingly police<\/p>\n
requested him to medically examine the accused, Narinder Singh,<\/p>\n
but he refused. The police on the basis of this made an allegation<\/p>\n
against the petitioner that he had taken liquor during duty hours and<\/p>\n
action could not be taken against the accused on account of non<\/p>\n
cooperative attitude of the petitioner in not medically examining the<\/p>\n
said accused. Allegation of misbehaving with some of the constables<\/p>\n
was also made against the petitioner and he was accordingly charge<\/p>\n
sheeted.\n<\/p>\n
              The petitioner submitted his reply, copy of which is on<\/p>\n
record as Annexure P-3. Obviously, the petitioner has denied the<\/p>\n
allegation as made against him. Taking into consideration the reply<\/p>\n
filed by the petitioner, charge preferred against him was dropped.<\/p>\n
The petitioner,        however, remained under suspension        up to<\/p>\n
5.11.1985. Though this charge preferred against the petitioner was<\/p>\n
dropped but he was served with another charge sheet with the<\/p>\n
allegation that during his period of suspension, he did not remain at<\/p>\n
his head quarters, which was fixed at Narnaul.          The petitioner<\/p>\n
submitted reply to this charge sheet and ultimately was warned for<\/p>\n
having committed this misconduct. No action, however, was taken<\/p>\n
against the petitioner for charge, for which he was placed under<\/p>\n
suspension.        Taking this to be a punishment awarded to the<\/p>\n
petitioner, the period of suspension has been regularised. Though it<\/p>\n
is directed to be counted as duty but petitioner still has not been held<\/p>\n
entitled to full pay and allowances during the period of his<\/p>\n
suspension on the authority of Rule 7.3 (2) of CSR Vol. 1 Part 1.
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 3424 of 1989                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
              Two questions would thus arise for consideration. Can<\/p>\n
the warning awarded to the petitioner be taken into consideration<\/p>\n
while regularising the period of suspension of the petitioner, which<\/p>\n
was not for the allegation for which this punishment was awarded.<\/p>\n
Incidental question would be to see if the punishment of warning<\/p>\n
should lead to non payment of full salary and whether such order<\/p>\n
would be fair having regard to the facts and circumstances of this<\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n
              Once the charge for which the petitioner was suspended<\/p>\n
was dropped and not pursued further, it would necessarily mean that<\/p>\n
the petitioner has not been awarded any punishment for the charge<\/p>\n
alleged, which led to his suspension. It would obviously mean that<\/p>\n
the petitioner was fully exonerated of the charge. It is possible thus to<\/p>\n
view that his suspension for this allegation was wholly unjustified. As<\/p>\n
per     Rule 7.3 (2), the petitioner shall be entitled to full pay and<\/p>\n
allowances for this period as if he has not been suspended at all.<\/p>\n
This would clearly come out from the contents of the Rules.          The<\/p>\n
justification given by the respondents to deny the full pay and<\/p>\n
allowances to the petitioner for this period on the ground that he was<\/p>\n
warned thus would not be justified. This punishment was awarded to<\/p>\n
the petitioner for a different allegation. The suspension of the<\/p>\n
petitioner was not related to the subsequent charge preferred against<\/p>\n
the petitioner for which he was proceeded against for award of minor<\/p>\n
penalty under Rule 8 of Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1987. The<\/p>\n
earlier charge sheet which was dropped is dated 24.3.1987 and is<\/p>\n
annexed with the record as Annexure P-2. The punishment of<\/p>\n
warning has been awarded to the petitioner on a charge sheet, which
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 3424 of 1989                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
is dated 15.12.1987. This is for entirely different allegation. For this<\/p>\n
allegation, the petitioner was not proceeded against for award of<\/p>\n
major penalty. This charge sheet was under Rule 8 for award of<\/p>\n
minor penalty. Thus this charge sheet or the punishment that has<\/p>\n
ultimately been awarded to the petitioner has no connection with his<\/p>\n
suspension. The allegation for which the petitioner has been warned<\/p>\n
is only to the effect that he has not remained at the Head Quarters<\/p>\n
during part of period of suspension from 20.4.1985 to 13.5.1995. He<\/p>\n
has been treated as absent for this period.          I am clearly of the view<\/p>\n
that this punishment cannot legally be taken into consideration to<\/p>\n
have an effect on the pay and allowances that would be payable to<\/p>\n
the petitioner for a period of suspension. The respondent authorities<\/p>\n
could competently pass an order denying full pay and allowances to<\/p>\n
the petitioner for the period of suspension only, if he had been<\/p>\n
awarded a punishment for the allegation for which he was placed<\/p>\n
under suspension.             The petitioner was never placed under<\/p>\n
suspension for being absent from his Head Quarters during the<\/p>\n
period of suspension.\n<\/p>\n
              Even otherwise, it would not be fair and appropriate to<\/p>\n
deny the benefit of pay and allowances for the period of suspension<\/p>\n
where ultimately an employee is left with just an award of warning.<\/p>\n
In this regard, reference can be made to a decision in Civil Writ<\/p>\n
Petition No. 21304 of 2008 decided on 14.7.2009. In this case it has<\/p>\n
been viewed as under:\n<\/p>\n
              “If the case is considered fit enough to be disposed of by<\/p>\n
              award of warning then it can be said that there was hardly<\/p>\n
              any     requirement      to   place   the   petitioners       under
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 3424 of 1989                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
              suspension. It is thus possible to say that the suspension<\/p>\n
              was unjustified. As per the rule, competent authority is<\/p>\n
              called upon to conclude that the suspension of the said<\/p>\n
              servant was not wholly unjustified.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Reference here can also be made to a decision in the<\/p>\n
case of Krishan Sewak versus The State of Haryana and another<\/p>\n
1997 (4) RSJ 162. In this case also it is held that it would not be<\/p>\n
appropriate, just and proper to deny benefit of pay and allowances<\/p>\n
for the period of suspension where the said period is regularized by<\/p>\n
grant of leave of kind due and where the case is disposed of by<\/p>\n
penalty of warning.          Similar view was taken in      Rattan Singh<\/p>\n
Chaudhary versus The State of Punjab 1971 SLR 692. In this<\/p>\n
case, it has been held that disallowing the pay and allowances by<\/p>\n
treating the period as not having been spent on duty leads to serious<\/p>\n
civil consequences and that the competent authority is to pass an<\/p>\n
order in a quasi judicial manner affording the opportunity of hearing.<\/p>\n
Not only that, it was further observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
              ”      It is so stated by interpreting sub Rule 2 of Rule 7.3,<\/p>\n
              Single Judge of this Court after noticing that the petitioner<\/p>\n
              therein was only awarded the punishment of stoppage of<\/p>\n
              two next increment without cumulative effect, but the<\/p>\n
              consequential order passed under Rule 7.3 would cause<\/p>\n
              much more damage than the original order passed in this<\/p>\n
              case.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Even the reading of Rule 7.3 (2) of the Rules would show<\/p>\n
that justification for payment of pay and allowances would primarily<\/p>\n
depend upon the outcome of the inquiry which is held, for which the
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 3424 of 1989                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
government employee is placed under suspension, where the<\/p>\n
consequential effect of rule is seen operating harshly than the<\/p>\n
punishment awarded. The same can cetainly be termed as unfair<\/p>\n
and unjust. The view thus is possible that it would not be fair, just and<\/p>\n
equitable to forfeit the pay and allowances of the person, who is<\/p>\n
ultimately left with the award of warning only.      This consideration<\/p>\n
would arise if it is viewed that the punishment of warning as awarded<\/p>\n
to the petitioner can be taken into consideration for the purpose of<\/p>\n
regularizing his period of suspension.       As already noticed, this<\/p>\n
punishment primarily cannot be taken into consideration while<\/p>\n
passing an order regularizing the period of suspension of the<\/p>\n
petitioner so far as the grant of pay and allowances is concerned.<\/p>\n
              Viewing the case from any angle, the irresistible<\/p>\n
conclusion is that the denial of full pay and allowances to the<\/p>\n
petitioner for a period he has remained under suspension is neither<\/p>\n
legally permissible course nor would it be just, fair and appropriate.<\/p>\n
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders,<\/p>\n
Annexures P-7 and P-8, are set aside. The petitioner is held entitled<\/p>\n
to full pay and allowances for the period he has remained under<\/p>\n
suspension i.e. from 15.4.1985 to 5.11.1985. There shall be no<\/p>\n
order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
October 15, 2009                               ( RANJIT SINGH )\nrts                                                 JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Dr. Mohinder Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 15 October, 2009 Civil Writ Petition No. 3424 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 3424 of 1989 Date of decision: 15.10.2009 Dr. Mohinder Singh …petitioner Versus The State of Haryana …respondent. CORAM: […]<\/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-166501","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Mohinder Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 15 October, 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\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Mohinder Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-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=\"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-09T20:05:05+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Mohinder Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 15 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-09T20:05:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1520,\"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\\\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Dr. Mohinder Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-09T20:05:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Mohinder Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 15 October, 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":"Dr. Mohinder Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 15 October, 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\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Mohinder Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-09T20:05:05+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Mohinder Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 15 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-09T20:05:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009"},"wordCount":1520,"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\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009","name":"Dr. Mohinder Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-09T20:05:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mohinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Mohinder Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 15 October, 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\/166501","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=166501"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166501\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166501"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166501"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166501"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}