{"id":200783,"date":"1991-08-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-08-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991"},"modified":"2017-06-14T01:22:36","modified_gmt":"2017-06-13T19:52:36","slug":"mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991","title":{"rendered":"Mahender Singh vs Union Of India And Anr on 2 August, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mahender Singh vs Union Of India And Anr on 2 August, 1991<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 SCR (3) 330, \t 1991 SCC Supl. (2) 127<\/div>\n
Author: K Shetty<\/div>\n
Bench: Shetty, K.J. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMAHENDER SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ANR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/08\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\nBENCH:\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\nRAMASWAMI, V. (J) II\nYOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)\n\nCITATION<\/a>:\n 1991 SCR  (3) 330\t  1991 SCC  Supl.  (2) 127\n JT 1991 (3)   462\t  1991 SCALE  (2)292\n\n\nACT:\n    Service  Law:  Central Civil  Services  (Classification,\nControl\t  and\tAppeal)\t Rules,\t 1965\t Rule\t10(4)--Scope\nof--Services of employee terminated by a simple\t termination\norder under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service)  Rules,\n1965---Termination  order set aside by\tTribunal--Retrospec-\ntive suspension from the date of original order of  termina-\ntion--Whether justified.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t appellant,  a cash clerk in  the  establishment  of\nDelhi  Milk Scheme, was placed under suspension\t under\tRule\n10(2) of the Central Civil Service (Classification,  Control\nand Appeal) Rules, 1965, pending investigation into a crimi-\nnal  case, connected with the forgery of a cheque, in  which\nhe  was\t arrayed as an accused. Subsequently,  his  services\nwere  terminated under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil  Serv-\nices (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Though he was  acquit-\nted  in the criminal case, he was not re-instated.  However,\nthe  Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the  termina-\ntion order and directed that the appellant would continue to\nbe under suspension from the original date of termination of\nservice, and that it would be open to the competent authori-\nty,  to revoke his suspension and re-instate him in  service\nor continue him under suspension, if it decided to  initiate\ndisciplinary proceedings against him.\n    Pursuant to the decision of the Tribunal, the Management\npassed\tan order under Rule 10(4) of the Rules\tplacing\t the\nappellant  under suspension from the date of original  order\nof  termination and also directed that there should be\tfur-\nther enquiry against the appellant.\n    Allowing  the  appeal  preferred by\t the  appellant\t and\nmodifying the Tribunal's order,\n    HELD: 1.1 There are three requirements for the  applica-\ntion of Rule 10(4) of the Central Civil Services  (Classifi-\ncation,\t Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. These are (i)\t the\nGovernment  servant  is dismissed, removed  or\tcompulsorily\nretired as a measure of penalty; (ii) the said\n 331\npenalty\t is  set  aside or declared or rendered\t void  by  a\ndecision  of  a\t Court of Law; and  (iii)  the\tdisciplinary\nauthority  decides  to hold a further  inquiry\tagainst\t the\nGovernment servant on the allegations on which the  original\norder of penalty was imposed. [334F-G]\n    1.2 In the instant case, the original order of  termina-\ntion  was not passed against the appellant as a\t measure  of\npunishment.  It was a 'simpliciter termination'\t under\tRule\n5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The  Tribu-\nnal  has set aside that order on the ground that it  amounts\nto  punishment\tand the order of punishment could  not\thave\nbeen  made without holding an inquiry. But that is  not\t the\nsame thing to state that the Management made an order termi-\nnating\tthe services by way of penalty. It treated the\tsaid\norder  as a simpliciter discharge. Hence Rule 10(4)  has  no\napplication.  Besides, there was no question of the  Manage-\nment deciding to hold a further inquiry, since there was  no\nearlier inquiry against the appellant and it would be misno-\nmer to call it a further enquiry as contemplated under\tRule\n10(4). [335B-C]\n    1.3 Thus, the power to place a delinquent officer  under\nsuspension from the date of the original order of dismissal,\nremoval\t or  compulsory\t retirement from  service  would  be\navailable  provided  the original order was made by  way  of\npenalty and that order has been set aside by a Court of Law.\nSince  there  was no inquiry leading to the removal  of\t the\nappellant in the first instance, the decision to hold  fresh\ninquiry\t does  not  attract Rule  10(4).  The  retrospective\nsuspension  of the appellant is, therefore, unjustified\t and\nwithout\t authority of law. However the order  of  suspension\nwould  operate\tprospectively  and the\tappellant  would  be\nentitled to re-instatement with all back wages till that day\nsince  the original order of termination has been set  aside\nby the Tribunal. The Tribunal's order is modified according-\nly. [335D-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1821  of
\n1991.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment and Order dated 17 4.  1990  of\t the
\nCentral Administrative Tribunal, Delhi in R.A. No. 117\/88 in
\nT.A. No. 351 of 1986.\n<\/p>\n
      O.P. Saxena and Mukul Gupta for the Appellant.
\n     J.D.  Jain, Kailash Vasudev, Ms. Sushma Suri  and\tS.N.
\nTerdal for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
332<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This appeal is from an order of
\nthe Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi and  concerns
\nwith  the scope of Rule 10(4) of the Central  Civil  Service
\n(CCA) Rules, 1965 (‘the Rules’)
\n    The facts leading to the appeal are these: The appellant
\nwas a cash clerk in the establishment of Delhi Milk  Scheme,
\nNew  Delhi. There was some criminal case connected with\t the
\nforgery of a cheque in which the appellant was arrayed as an
\naccused. Pending investigation of the criminal case, he\t was
\nplaced under suspension. The order of suspension was made on
\nMarch 27, 1976 under Rule 10(2) of the Rules. On January 10,
\n1976  his  services were terminated under Rule 5(1)  of\t the
\nCentral\t Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.  On
\nMarch  7, 1980, the appellant was acquitted in the  criminal
\ncase. On January 5, 1981 the appellant filed a civil suit in
\nthe  District  Court, New Delhi, challenging  the  order  of
\ntermination of his services. The suit was transferred to the
\nCentral\t Administrative Tribunal for disposal. The  Tribunal
\nhas,  by its judgment dated September 5, 1988 set aside\t the
\ntermination order with the following conditions:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(i)  The impugned order of termination  dated
\n\t      10.1.1978 is quashed. Consequently, status quo
\n\t      ante  as\tin regard to applicant\tbeing  under
\n\t      suspension will continue from 10.1.1978.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii) It will be open to the competent authori-
\n\t      ty to take a final decision on the continuance
\n\t      or otherwise of the suspension in the light of
\n\t      the  judgment  of\t Chief\tJudicial  Magistrate
\n\t      dated 7.3.80 in case No. 57\/2. It will be open
\n\t      to the competent authority to revoke the order
\n\t      of suspension and reinstate the plaintiff into
\n\t      service as cash clerk. In that event, the\t pay
\n\t      and  allowances  of the plaintiff\t during\t the
\n\t      period  of  his actual suspension\t from  27.3.
\n\t      1976 to 10.1.78 and deemed suspension thereaf-
\n\t      ter shall be regulated in accordance with\t the
\n\t      provisions  of  F.R. 54-B.  Necessary  adjust-
\n\t      ments, if any, should be made or in regard  to
\n\t      the subsistence allowance already paid to him.
\n\t      The defendants shall also consider and  decide
\n\t      whether  the period of actual and deemed\tsus-
\n\t      pension shall be treated as a period spent  on
\n\t      duty or not.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t     333<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (iii)  It will also be open to  the  competent
\n\t      authority,  if  so advised,  to  continue\t the
\n\t      plaintiff\t on suspension if it is\t decided  to
\n\t      initiate disciplinary proceedings against\t him
\n\t      based on his conduct which led to his prosecu-
\n\t      tion before the criminal court. The  discipli-
\n\t      nary  proceedings if initiated should be\tcom-
\n\t      pleted within a period of six months from\t the
\n\t      date of communication of this order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iv) The competent authority shall take appro-
\n\t      priate  decision\tas regards  (ii)  and  (iii)
\n\t      above  within a period of two months from\t the
\n\t      date of communication of this order.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Pursuant to the decision of the Tribunal management made
\nan  order  dated November 10, 1988 under Rule 10(4)  of\t the
\nRules placing the petitioner under suspension w.e.f. January
\n10,  1978. The appellant shall be deemed to have  been\tsus-
\npended\tfrom the date of the original order of\ttermination.
\nThe  management also directed that there should\t be  further
\nenquiry’ against the appellant. The relevant portion of\t the
\norder dated November 10, 1988 reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “AND whereas the undersigned on a  considera-
\n\t      tion  of\tthe circumstances of the  case,\t has
\n\t      also decided that a further enquiry should  be
\n\t      held  under the provision of  CCS(CCA)  Rules,
\n\t      1965 against the said Shri Mohinder Singh, Ex.
\n\t      Cash Clerk on the allegation which led to\t his
\n\t      termination of service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       NOW THEREFORE the undersigned hereby:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)  set\taside the order\t of  termination  of
\n\t      services\tof  Shri Mohinder  Singh,  Ex.\tCash
\n\t      Clerk\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  directs that further enquiry  should  be
\n\t      held  under the provisions of CCS(CCA)  Rules,
\n\t      1965 against Shri Mohinder Singh on the  alle-
\n\t      gations  of  misappropriation of\tGovt.  Money
\n\t      which led to the termination of service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii)  directs  that the\tsaid  Shri  Mohinder
\n\t      Singh,  Ex. Cash Clerk shall under sub-rule  4
\n\t      of  Rule\t10 of the CCS(CCA)  Rules,  1965  be
\n\t      deemed  to have been placed  under  suspension
\n\t      w.e.f. 10.1. 1978 and shall continue to remain
\n\t      under suspension until further orders.
\n\t\t\t\t   (Baldev Chand)
\n\t\t\t    Disciplinary Authority
\n\t\t\t    Dy. General Manager (A)”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
334<\/span><\/p>\n
    After  holding the enquiry the appellant was again\tdis-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
missed\tfrom  service. That order was made  on\tDecember  1,
\n1989.  It is said that the dismissal has been challenged  by
\nthe appellant before the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the above narration of facts it will be seen\tthat
\nthe  Tribunal while setting aside the termination order\t has
\ndirected  that\tthe appellant shall continue  in  suspension
\nfrom January 10, 1978. The management while deciding to hold
\nfurther\t enquiry has also directed that the appellant  shall
\nbe deemed to have been placed under suspension w.e.f.  Janu-
\nary  10,  1978. The management made this  order\t under\tRule
\n10(4) which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “Where  a  penalty of dismissal,\t removal  or
\n\t      compulsory  retirement  from  service  imposed
\n\t      upon  a  Government servant is  set  aside  or
\n\t      declared or rendered void in consequence of or
\n\t      by a decision of a court of law and the disci-
\n\t      plinary  authority on a consideration  of\t the
\n\t      circumstances  of the case, decides to hold  a
\n\t      further inquiry against him on the allegations
\n\t      on which the penalty of dismissal, removal  or
\n\t      compulsory retirement was originally  imposed,
\n\t      the Government servant shall be deemed to have
\n\t      been placed under suspension by the Appointing
\n\t      Authority from the date of the original  order
\n\t      of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement
\n\t      and shall continue to remain under  suspension
\n\t      until further orders:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       Provided that no such further inquiry
\n\t      shall be ordered unless it is intended to meet
\n\t      a\t situation  where the Court  has  passed  an
\n\t      order  purely  on\t technical  grounds  without
\n\t      going into the merits of the case.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    There are three requirements for the application of Rule
\n10(4);\t(i) The Government servant is dismissed, removed  or
\ncompulsorily  retired  as  a measure of\t penalty;  (ii)\t the
\npenalty\t of dismissal, removal or compulsory  retirement  is
\nset  aside or declared or rendered void by a decision  of  a
\nCourt  of Law; (iii) The disciplinary authority\t decides  to
\nhold a further inquiry against the Government servant on the
\nallegations  on\t which\tthe original order  of\tpenalty\t was
\nimposed. If these three requirements are satisfied then\t the
\nGovernment  servant  ,shall be deemed to  have\tbeen  placed
\nunder  suspension by the appointing authority from the\tdate
\nof  original order of penalty of dismissal, removal or\tcom-
\npulsory\t retirements and he shall continue to  remain  under
\nsuspension until further orders.\n<\/p>\n
      335<\/span><\/p>\n
    The\t order of the Tribunal and the management as to\t the
\nretrospective  suspension  of the appellant cannot  be\tsus-
\ntained under Rule 10(4) of the Rules. It may be relevant  to
\nremember  that\tthe original order of  termination  was\t not
\npassed against the appellant as a measure of punishment.  It
\nwas  a ‘simpliciter termination’ of the appellants’  service
\nunder  Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules  1965.
\nThe Tribunal has set aside that order on the ground that  it
\namounts to punishment and the order of punishment could\t not
\nhave been made without holding an inquiry against the appel-
\nlant.  But  that  is not the same thing to  state  that\t the
\nmanagement  made  an order terminating the services  of\t the
\nappellant by way of penalty. The management treated the said
\norder as a simpliciter discharge. Rule 10(4) therefore,\t has
\nno application to the case of the appellant.
\n    Secondly,  it  would be misnomer to call  it  a  further
\ninquiry\t as  contemplated  under Rule 10(4).  There  was  no
\nquestion  of the management deciding to hold a\tfurther\t in-
\nquiry since there was no earlier inquiry against the  appel-
\nlant.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t power to place delinquent officer under  suspension
\nfrom the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or
\ncompulsory  retirement from service would be available\tpro-
\nvided if the original order of dismissal, removal or compul-
\nsory retirement from service was made by way of penalty\t and
\nthat order has been set aside by a Court of law. Since there
\nwas  no inquiry leading to the removal of the  appellant  in
\nthe first instance, the decision to hold fresh inquiry\tdoes
\nnot attract Rule 10(4). The retrospective suspension of\t the
\nappellant is therefore, unjustified and without authority of
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
    However,  it may be stated that the order of  suspension
\ndated November 10, 1988 would operate prospectively and\t the
\nappellant  would be entitled to reinstatement with all\tback
\nwages till that day since the original order of\t termination
\nhas been set aside by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
    The appeal is accordingly allowed modifying the impugned
\norder. In the circumstances of the case, however, we make no
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
N.P.V.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeal allowed.\n336<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mahender Singh vs Union Of India And Anr on 2 August, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1991 SCR (3) 330, 1991 SCC Supl. (2) 127 Author: K Shetty Bench: Shetty, K.J. (J) PETITIONER: MAHENDER SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR DATE OF JUDGMENT02\/08\/1991 BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) […]<\/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-200783","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMahender Singh vs Union Of India And Anr on 2 August, 1991 - 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\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahender Singh vs Union Of India And Anr on 2 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991\" \/>\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=\"1991-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-13T19:52:36+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\\\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahender Singh vs Union Of India And Anr on 2 August, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-13T19:52:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991\"},\"wordCount\":1484,\"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\\\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991\",\"name\":\"Mahender Singh vs Union Of India And Anr on 2 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-13T19:52:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahender Singh vs Union Of India And Anr on 2 August, 1991\"}]},{\"@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":"Mahender Singh vs Union Of India And Anr on 2 August, 1991 - 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\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahender Singh vs Union Of India And Anr on 2 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-13T19:52:36+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\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahender Singh vs Union Of India And Anr on 2 August, 1991","datePublished":"1991-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-13T19:52:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991"},"wordCount":1484,"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\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991","name":"Mahender Singh vs Union Of India And Anr on 2 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-13T19:52:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-2-august-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahender Singh vs Union Of India And Anr on 2 August, 1991"}]},{"@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\/200783","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=200783"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200783\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200783"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200783"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}