{"id":181691,"date":"2008-09-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-04-03T23:47:43","modified_gmt":"2018-04-03T18:17:43","slug":"jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Jarnail Singh vs Director State Transport Punjab on 4 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Jarnail Singh vs Director State Transport Punjab on 4 September, 2008<\/div>\n
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                   AT CHANDIGARH\n                   ****\n                        Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987\n                               Date of Decision:04.09.2008\n\nJarnail Singh\n                                                         .....Petitioner\n            Vs.\nDirector State Transport Punjab, Chandigarh and others\n                                                  .....Respondents\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL\n\nPresent:-   Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with\n            Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.\n\n            Mr. Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab.\n                       ****\nHARBANS LAL, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            This petition has been moved by Jarnail Singh- workman for<\/p>\n
quashing the impugned award dated 23.9.1987 Annexure P.1 passed by the<\/p>\n
Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
            The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 24.2.1983,<\/p>\n
when the petitioner was Conductor on Bus No.6468, he was found to have<\/p>\n
charged fare @ Rs.2.15 per head from eight passengers travelling in a group<\/p>\n
from Kotkapura to Baghapurana, though the tickets were not issued to them.<\/p>\n
When unpunched      tickets of the value of the amount embezzled were<\/p>\n
demanded from him by the checking party at Samalsar, he did not part with<\/p>\n
such tickets. He prevented the checking staff to give their observations on<\/p>\n
the way bill. On 29.1.1983, when he was conductor on bus No.6772, his<\/p>\n
bus was checked at Moga by Inspector Chand Ram. The petitioner was<\/p>\n
found on duty without uniform and the first aid box. On 8.3.1983, he was<\/p>\n
conductor on bus No.6732 when the same was checked at Shamatkhera by<\/p>\n
Inspector Joginder Singh, he was found to have issued to four passengers<\/p>\n
tickets short by 60 paise and two others by 80 paise. When he was charge-
\n Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987                            -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
sheeted he did not plead guilty thereto. After inquiry, he was found guilty.<\/p>\n
He was served with a show cause notice to which he filed reply. After<\/p>\n
considering the same, his services were terminated. The dispute between<\/p>\n
the petitioner and the respondents was referred to the Presiding Officer,<\/p>\n
Labour Court, Bathinda.\n<\/p>\n
            After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Labour Court<\/p>\n
vide impugned award dated 23.9.1987 held that the workman is not entitled<\/p>\n
to any relief. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he has preferred this petition<\/p>\n
under Articles 226\/227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
            In the written statement filed by the respondents, it has been<\/p>\n
admitted that the petitioner was working as conductor with them when his<\/p>\n
services were terminated on 30.9.1983. It has been averred that the Labour<\/p>\n
Court, Bathinda has rightly held that inquiry was fair and proper. This<\/p>\n
petition may be dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
            I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing<\/p>\n
the findings returned by the learned Labour Court in the impugned award.<\/p>\n
On behalf of the petitioner, it has been argued that even if it be assumed<\/p>\n
that the inquiry was fair and proper, nonetheless, the Labour Court was<\/p>\n
bound to re-appreciate the evidence produced in inquiry and then come to<\/p>\n
its independent findings as to whether any misconduct was proved or not. It<\/p>\n
has been wrongly held that it is not within the scope of jurisdiction of the<\/p>\n
Labour Court to probe into the truth of the charges as long as the inquiry is<\/p>\n
fair and proper. Once the Labour Court was satisfied that the misconduct<\/p>\n
was proved, then it was to decide the question of quantum of punishment. If<\/p>\n
a passenger travels without ticket, he is bound to pay ten times fare. Any<\/p>\n
passenger who travels without ticket would naturally put the blame on the
\n Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987                            -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
conductor. It is in these circumstances that, it becomes necessary that the<\/p>\n
statements of the passengers should have been recorded. The checking staff<\/p>\n
must find as to whether the blame falls on the passenger or the conductor.<\/p>\n
The petitioner was not provided any help of co-worker, though the<\/p>\n
management was represented by a Presenting Officer. It was incumbent<\/p>\n
upon the Inquiry Officer to tell the petitioner that he is entitled to engage<\/p>\n
co-employee for help in the inquiry which has not been done. The question<\/p>\n
which arise for determination by this Court is as to whether the termination<\/p>\n
of services of the petitioner is illegal or that the Labour Court has wrongly<\/p>\n
held that the inquiry was fair and proper and has failed to exercise the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction vested in it under Section 11-A of the Act.<\/p>\n
            Mr. Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General,<\/p>\n
Punjab refuted these submissions by contending that as is borne out from<\/p>\n
the award itself, the petitioner had admitted that the inquiry was held and he<\/p>\n
had participated therein and furthermore the inquiry was found fair and<\/p>\n
proper. The law nowhere lays down that the statements of the passengers<\/p>\n
ought to have been recorded either by the Inquiry Officer or the Labour<\/p>\n
Court and that being so, no fault can be found with the findings returned by<\/p>\n
the Labour Court.     To buttress these stances, he has sought to place<\/p>\n
abundant reliance upon the observations made in re: Kirpal Singh v.<\/p>\n
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory Chandigarh and<\/p>\n
another, 1993 (3) Recent Services Judgments 338, Haryana State<\/p>\n
Electricity Board, Panchkula and another v. Presiding Officer, Labour<\/p>\n
Court, Faridabad and another, 1999 (4) Recent Services Judgments 777,<\/p>\n
State of Punjab and others v. Nirmal Singh,<\/a> 1987 Punjab Acts and<\/p>\n
Precedents 24 (Punjab and Haryana), State of Haryana and another v.
\n Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987                            -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
Rattan Singh, 1977 Punjab Law Reporter 492, Divisional Controller,<\/p>\n
N.E.K.R.T.C.      v. H. Amaresh,<\/a> 2006 (5) Service Law Reporter 721,<\/p>\n
Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C. v. Ghyanshyam Sharma, 2002 (3) Recent<\/p>\n
Services Judgments 77, Pritam Singh v. Labour Court, Bathinda and<\/p>\n
others<\/a>, 1999 (3) Recent Services Judgments 290.\n<\/p>\n
             On giving a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival<\/p>\n
contentions, the view I am disposed to take is that the contentions raised by<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the petitioner are unsustainable for the reasons to be<\/p>\n
recorded hereinafter.\n<\/p>\n
             In the impugned award, it has been observed by the Presiding<\/p>\n
Officer of the Labour Court that “at any rate, the checking of the bus by<\/p>\n
flying squad is admitted by the workman in reply to the chargesheet and the<\/p>\n
workman himself suggested to Prithvi Raj and Sarwan Singh in the cross-<\/p>\n
examination that eight passengers were apprehended by the checking staff<\/p>\n
without tickets.”   This observation leave no scope for doubt that the<\/p>\n
petitioner himself had admitted that eight passengers were apprehended by<\/p>\n
the checking staff without tickets. Thus, there was no need to examine such<\/p>\n
passengers. It has been further observed that “in the cross-examination<\/p>\n
directed at Inspector Sarwan Singh of the flying squad, it was suggested by<\/p>\n
the workman that the passengers who were found travelling without tickets<\/p>\n
had been charged by the conductor of the bus, which had broken down. The<\/p>\n
suggestion was refuted by the Inspector who said “No this is incorrect, we<\/p>\n
confronted the conductor (the workman) with those passengers to his<\/p>\n
satisfaction.”   In view of these observations, the argument of learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner pales into insignificance. The matter does not rest<\/p>\n
here. In re: Rattan Singh (supra), a bus conductor of a State Transport
\n Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987                            -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
undertaking was charge-sheeted for not collecting fares from certain<\/p>\n
passengers. The statements of passengers were not recorded. The Apex<\/p>\n
Court ruled as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “that it is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and<\/p>\n
            sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act<\/p>\n
            may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for<\/p>\n
            a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay<\/p>\n
            evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is<\/p>\n
            true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals<\/p>\n
            must be careful in evaluting such material and should not<\/p>\n
            glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the<\/p>\n
            Indian Evidence Act. The essence of a judicial approach is<\/p>\n
            objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations<\/p>\n
            and observance of rules of natural justice.       Sufficiency of<\/p>\n
            evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is<\/p>\n
            beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a<\/p>\n
            finding is certainly available for the court to look into because<\/p>\n
            it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. It cannot<\/p>\n
            hold that merely because statements of passengers were not<\/p>\n
            recorded the order that followed was invalid. Likewise, the re-<\/p>\n
            evaluation of the evidence on the strength of co-conductor’s<\/p>\n
            testimony is a matter not for the court but for the administrative<\/p>\n
            tribunal.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            It can be reasonably culled out from these observations that the<\/p>\n
impugned award cannot be held unsustainable merely because the<\/p>\n
statements of the passengers were not recorded. Further in re: Nirmal
\n Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987                           -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
Singh (supra), it has been held that there is no need to produce passengers.<\/p>\n
The statement of Inspector who checked the passenger and cash of the<\/p>\n
conductor relevant to be relied upon. In re: Haryana State Electricity<\/p>\n
Board, Panchkula and another v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,<\/p>\n
Faridabad and another (supra), it has been observed that “the findings of<\/p>\n
fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction on<\/p>\n
the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the<\/p>\n
Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding.<\/p>\n
The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of<\/p>\n
fact   to be drawn from the said finding being within the exclusive<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the same could not be agitated before High<\/p>\n
Court in writ jurisdiction.” Thus in view of these observations, it does not<\/p>\n
lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that the relevant and material<\/p>\n
evidence produced before the Labour Court was insufficient or inadequate<\/p>\n
to sustain the impugned finding. In re: Kirpal Singh (supra), it has been<\/p>\n
observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “It is one thing to say that the assistance of a co-workman was<\/p>\n
            denied and altogether different thing to say that the co-<\/p>\n
            workman be called and the enquiry may be ensued only<\/p>\n
            thereafter. Further, this point was not raised before the Labour<\/p>\n
            Court. While dealing with issue No.1 which is with regard to<\/p>\n
            enquiry being proper or vitiated for some reason, it has been<\/p>\n
            held that the workman in fact in his statement did not make any<\/p>\n
            grievance with regard to the conduct of enquiry nor did he say<\/p>\n
            anything which could possibly suggest that he was not allowed<\/p>\n
            fair and reasonable opportunity either to cross examine the
\n Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987                             -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
           witnesses who appeared against him or in leading defence to<\/p>\n
           prove his own case. If this point was taken in the pleadings<\/p>\n
           before the Labour Court and evidence was led, it was possible<\/p>\n
           for the management to rebut the same and prove that in fact<\/p>\n
           assistance of a co-workman was never denied to the petitioner<\/p>\n
           and that the presence of the co-workman was not to be secured<\/p>\n
           by it. In view of the fact that this matter was not agitated<\/p>\n
           before the Labour Court and in fact no question whatsoever<\/p>\n
           was raised against the conduct of the enquiry, it shall not be<\/p>\n
           just and equitable at this stage to go into this point and set aside<\/p>\n
           the order of dismissal of petitioner from service.<\/p>\n
           The next point raised by the learned counsel based on Full<\/p>\n
           Bench Judgment of this Court in “The State of Haryana and<\/p>\n
           others versus Ram Chander”, A.I.R. 1976 Punjab & Haryana<\/p>\n
           381 is that the passengers who had boarded the bus and were<\/p>\n
           not issued the tickets as alleged against the petitioner were<\/p>\n
           admittedly not examined before the Enquiry Officer and the<\/p>\n
           evidence of the Inspectors alone was not enough to prove the<\/p>\n
           charges levelled against him. The evidence of Inspectors is<\/p>\n
           said to be hear-say evidence and, therefore, inadmissible and<\/p>\n
           unreliable. I am afraid this contention of the learned counsel<\/p>\n
           on the basis of law laid down in “State of Haryana and another<\/p>\n
           versus Rattan Singh”, 1977 Punjab Law Reporter 492 and<\/p>\n
           Sarup Singh, Ex-Conductor Versus The State of Punjab and<\/p>\n
           others”, 1989 (7) Services Law Reporter 328 has to be<\/p>\n
           repelled.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987                             -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
             Harking back to the facts of the present case, in the background<\/p>\n
of the afore-quoted law, if the evidence of the Inspector is assumed for a<\/p>\n
little while to be hearsay, notwithstanding it cannot be discarded as it has<\/p>\n
reasonable nexus and credibility. As is borne out from the impugned award,<\/p>\n
it was not pointed out before the Labour Court that the petitioner was not<\/p>\n
provided the assistance of a co-worker. It was also not argued before the<\/p>\n
Labour Court that a request was made by the petitioner for getting the help<\/p>\n
of a co-worker and the same was either declined or remained undecided.<\/p>\n
Rather as has been mentioned in the impugned award, the workman<\/p>\n
admitted that the inquiry was held and he had participated therein. A glance<\/p>\n
through the observations made in the impugned award would reveal that a<\/p>\n
fair and reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to cross-<\/p>\n
examine the witnesses who appeared against him. The impugned award<\/p>\n
tends to show that the petitioner himself had admitted certain material facts.<\/p>\n
             In the ultimate analysis, it is found that the termination of<\/p>\n
services of the petitioner does not smack of any illegality or infirmity. The<\/p>\n
learned Labour Court has acted in a right perspective by not exercising the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction vested in it under Section 11-A. In view of the preceding<\/p>\n
discussion, I do not consider it proper to interfere in exercise of writ<\/p>\n
jurisdiction under Articles 226\/227 of the Constitution of India. Sequelly,<\/p>\n
this petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
September 04, 2008                                  ( HARBANS LAL )\nrenu                                                    JUDGE\n\n\nWhether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes\/ No\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Jarnail Singh vs Director State Transport Punjab on 4 September, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Writ Petition No.7550 of 1987 Date of Decision:04.09.2008 Jarnail Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Director State Transport Punjab, Chandigarh and others …..Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Sarjit […]<\/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-181691","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJarnail Singh vs Director State Transport Punjab on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jarnail Singh vs Director State Transport Punjab on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-03T18:17:43+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jarnail Singh vs Director State Transport Punjab on 4 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-03T18:17:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2178,\"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\\\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Jarnail Singh vs Director State Transport Punjab on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-03T18:17:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jarnail Singh vs Director State Transport Punjab on 4 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"Jarnail Singh vs Director State Transport Punjab on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jarnail Singh vs Director State Transport Punjab on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-03T18:17:43+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jarnail Singh vs Director State Transport Punjab on 4 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-03T18:17:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008"},"wordCount":2178,"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\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008","name":"Jarnail Singh vs Director State Transport Punjab on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-03T18:17:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-director-state-transport-punjab-on-4-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jarnail Singh vs Director State Transport Punjab on 4 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/181691","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=181691"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181691\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}