{"id":28506,"date":"1974-08-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-08-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974"},"modified":"2017-06-15T15:31:55","modified_gmt":"2017-06-15T10:01:55","slug":"hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974","title":{"rendered":"Hari Singh Mann vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 20 August, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Hari Singh Mann vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 20 August, 1974<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 2263, \t\t  1975 SCR  (1) 774<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Ray<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nHARI SINGH MANN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF PUNJAB &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT20\/08\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR 2263\t\t  1975 SCR  (1) 774\n 1975 SCC  (3) 130\n\n\nACT:\nPunjab\tCivil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,  1952,\nRules  8(b) and 9--Termination of service of probationer  on\nground\t  of\tunfitness   for\t  appointment\t to    State\nService--Expression  \"unfit  to be  appointed\",\t if  carries\nstigma.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant was appointed on 20 May, 1965, on two  years'\nprobation.  On 1 July, 1967 there was an order extending the\nperiod of probation by one year.  On May 20, 1968, there was\nan  order  terminating the services of the  petitioner.\t  On\nJuly  20,  1968\t there was an order revoking  the  order  of\ntermination  and extending the period of probation  for\t six\nmonths from 20th May, 1968.  The order of termination was on\nJan.  30, 1969.\t This order recited that, having  considered\nhim  unfit for appointment to the State Police\tService\t the\nservices  of the appellant are dispensed with on the  expiry\nof  his extended period of probation.  Two contentions\twere\nraised by the appellant in the High Court.  First, the order\nof  termination\t was  passed  on Jan.  30,  1969,  when\t the\npetitioner.  by reason of expiry of 3 years stood  confirmed\non 19\/20 November, 1968 and Second, the order of termination\nwas  one  of punishment and the appellant should  have\tbeen\ngiven  an  opportunity to show cause against  the  order  of\ntermination  under  Rule  9  of\t the  Punjab  Civil  Service\n(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952.  These contentions were\nrejected by the High Court.  Hence the appeal to this  Court\nby Special Leave.\nDismissing the appeal,\nHELD: The object of extending the period of probation is  to\nfind  out  whether  the appellant was  a  fit  person.\t The\nappellant  could  not  be  confirmed,  till  the  period  of\nprobation  expired.  It cannot, therefore, be held that\t the\nappellant stood confirmed on 19\/20 November, 1968 before the\nperiod of probaition expired in January, 1969. [776A-B]\n(2)  Termination  on account of unsatisfactory\trecord\twill\nattract\t rule  9  of the Punishment Rules.   Fitness  was  a\nmatter\tto be considered at the time of\t confirmation.\t The\norder terminating the services is unfitness for\t appointment\nand not on the ground of any turpitude to attract Rule 9  of\nthe  Punishment Rules, 1952.  To hold that the words  \"unfit\nto be appointed\" mentioned in the order of termination,\t are\na  stigma,  would deprive the authorities to  judge  fitness\n'for  work  or\tsuitability  to\t a  post  at  the  time\t  of\nconfirmation.\t Termination  of  services  on\taccount\t  of\ninadequacy  for\t the job or for any  tompramental  or  other\ndefect\tnot involving moral turpitude is not a stigma  which\ncan be called discharge by punishment.\tFitness for the\t job\nis one. of the most important reasons for confirmation.\t The\nfacts  and  circumstances  do not show that  there  was\t any\nstigma\tattached to the order of termination and  therefore,\nRule  9\t of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment  &amp;  Appeal)\nRules,\t1952  is not attracted in the present  case.  [7760-\n777B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1955 of 1970.<br \/>\nAppeal by Special Leave from the judgement &amp; other dated the<br \/>\n5th  November, 1969 of the Punjab &amp; Harayana High  Court  in<br \/>\nCivil Write No. 309 of 1969.\n<\/p>\n<p>R.  K.\tGarg,  S. C. Agarwala and V.  J.  Francis,  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">775<\/span><\/p>\n<p>V. C. Mahajan and 0. P. Shorma, for the respondents.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nRAY,  C.J.  This  is an appeal by  special  leave  from\t the<br \/>\njudgment dated 5 November, 1969 of the High Court of  Punjab<br \/>\nand  Haryana.\tThe  only person is  whether  the  order  of<br \/>\ntermination of the service    of  the  appellant who  was  a<br \/>\nprobationer  is in violation of Rule 9 of the  Punjab  Civil<br \/>\nService (Punishment &amp; Appeal) Rules, 1952.<br \/>\nThe appellant was selected by the Public Service  Commission<br \/>\nas a direct recruit on 20 May, 1965.  He was appointed on 26<br \/>\nMay,&#8217;  1965.   He joined as a probationer.   The  period  of<br \/>\nprobation was two years.\n<\/p>\n<p>Rule  8(b)  of the Punjab Police Service Rules\t1959  states<br \/>\nthat   the  services  of  a  member  recruited\t by   direct<br \/>\nappointment  may be dispensed with by the Government on\t his<br \/>\nfailing\t to  pass the final examination at the\tend  of\t his<br \/>\nperiod of training, or on his being reported on during or at<br \/>\nthe   end  of  his  period  of\tprobation,  as\t unfit\t for<br \/>\nappointment.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  order  terminating the services of\t the  appellant\t was<br \/>\nas follows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      The President of India is pleased to  dispense<br \/>\n\t      with  the\t service of Shri  Hari\tSingh  Mann,<br \/>\n\t      Probationery Deputy Superintendent of  Police,<br \/>\n\t      Amritsar on the expiry of his extended  period<br \/>\n\t      of  probation with effect from  2-2-1969(A.N.)<br \/>\n\t      under  rule 8(b) of the Punjab Police  Service<br \/>\n\t      Rules  1959, having considered him  unfit\t for<br \/>\n\t      appointment  to the State Police Service.\t The<br \/>\n\t      period  from 20-5-68 to 2-8-68 which has\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      treated  as  leave of the kind  due  has\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      excluded\t  from\t the   period\t of    trial<br \/>\n\t      (Probation).&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The two contentions which have been advanced before the High<br \/>\nCourt  were repeated here. First, the order  of\t termination<br \/>\nwas passed on 30 January, 1969 when the petitioner by reason<br \/>\nof expiry of three years stood confirmed on 19\/20  November,<br \/>\n1968. Second the order of termination was one of  punishment<br \/>\nand  the  appellant should,therefore, under Rule  9  of\t the<br \/>\nPunjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules have been<br \/>\ngiven  opportunity  to\tshow  cause  against  the  order  of<br \/>\ntermination.\n<\/p>\n<p>Under  the  aforesaid (Police Service)\tRule  8(b)  proviso,<br \/>\nthe  Government could extend the period of probation by\t not<br \/>\nmore  than one year. The appellant was appointed on 20\tMay,<br \/>\n1965  on two years probation. On 1 July, 1967, there was  an<br \/>\norder  extending the period of probation by one year. On  20<br \/>\nMay,  1968, there was an order terminating the\tservices  of<br \/>\nthe petitioner. on 20 July. 1968 there was an order revoking<br \/>\nthe  order  of\ttermination  and  extending  the  period  of<br \/>\nprobation  for\tsix months from 20 May, 1968. The  order  of<br \/>\ntermination  was on 30 January, 1969. The appellant  was  on<br \/>\nleave from 20 May, 1968 to 2 August, 1968. The<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">776<\/span><br \/>\nGovernment  excluded the period of leave from the period  of<br \/>\nprobation.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  object of extending the period of probation is to\tfind<br \/>\nout  whether the appellant was a fit person.  The  appellant<br \/>\ncould not be confirmed till the period of probation to\tfind<br \/>\nout  the  fitness  of  the  appellant  expired.\t  It  cannot<br \/>\ntherefore  be  held that the appellant\tstood  confirmed  on<br \/>\n19\/20 November, 1968 before the period of probation  expired<br \/>\nin January, 1969.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant relied on Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil  Services<br \/>\n(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952.  Rule 9 is as follows<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;Where   it  is  proposed\t to  terminate\t the<br \/>\n\t      employment of a probationer, whether during or<br \/>\n\t      at the end of the period of probation, for any<br \/>\n\t      specific\tfault  or  on  account\tof  the\t un-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      satisfactory  record or  unfavourable  reports<br \/>\n\t      implying\tthe unsuitability for  the  service,<br \/>\n\t      the  probationer\tshall be  ,apprised  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      grounds\tof  such  proposal,  and  given\t  an<br \/>\n\t      opportunity  to show cause against it,  before<br \/>\n\t      orders  are passed by the authority  competent<br \/>\n\t      to terminate the appointment&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>If (Punishment) Rule 9 applies the services of the appellant<br \/>\ncould\tnot  be\t terminated  without  complying\t  with\t the<br \/>\nprevisions thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant contended that the order of termination stated<br \/>\nthat the appellant was considered unfit for appointment\t and<br \/>\ntherefore  it amounts to punishment to attract rule  9.\t The<br \/>\nappellant  extracted a statement from the affidavit  of\t the<br \/>\nInspector  General  of Police in answer to  the\t appellant&#8217;s<br \/>\npetition  in  the  High Court that  the\t appellant&#8217;s  record<br \/>\nduring\tthe period of probation was unsatisfactory  Reliance<br \/>\nis placed on rule 9 where it is said that if the termination<br \/>\nof the Services of a probationer be on\t\t account  of<br \/>\nunsatisfactory\trecord he shall be given an  opportunity  to<br \/>\nshow cause against it.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  respondent\t relied\t on rule 11  of\t the  Punjab  Police<br \/>\nService\t  Rules where it is stated that in matters  relating<br \/>\nto  discipline,\t penalties  &#8216;and  appeals,  members  of\t the<br \/>\nService\t shall\tbe  governed by the  Punjab  Civil  Services<br \/>\n(Punishment and Appeal) Rules. Therefore, it is said by\t the<br \/>\nrespondent that Rules 8 and 11 of the Punjab Police  Service<br \/>\nRules show that termination of probation which is dealt with<br \/>\nin  rule 8 is different from matters relating  to  penalties<br \/>\nwhich  are  dealt   with in rule II  of\t the  Punjab  Police<br \/>\nService Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>Termination on account of unsatisfactory record will attract<br \/>\nrule  9 of the Punishment Rules. It is obvious that  at\t the<br \/>\ntime  of confirmation fitness is a matter to be\t considered.<br \/>\nThe   order  terminating  the  services\t is  unfitness\t for<br \/>\nappointment at the time of confirmation, it is not passed on<br \/>\nthe ground of any turpitude like misconduct or inefficiency.<br \/>\nTo hold that the words &#8220;unfit to be appointed&#8221; are a  Stigma<br \/>\nwould rob the authorities of the power to judge fitness\t for<br \/>\nwork  or  suitability\tto  the\t     post  at  the  time  of<br \/>\nconfirmation.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">777<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Termination of services on account of inadequacy for the job<br \/>\nor for any temperamental or other defect not involving moral<br \/>\nturpitude  is not a stigma which can be called discharge  by<br \/>\npunishment.   Fitness  for  the\t job  is  one  of  the\tmost<br \/>\nimportant   reasons   for  confirmation.   The\t facts\t and<br \/>\ncircumstances do not show that there is any stigma  attached<br \/>\nto the order of termination.\n<\/p>\n<p>For  these  reasons,  the appeal  fails\t and  is  dismissed.<br \/>\nParties will pay and bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V.M.K.\t\t\t  Appeal Dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">778<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Hari Singh Mann vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 20 August, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 2263, 1975 SCR (1) 774 Author: A Ray Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj) PETITIONER: HARI SINGH MANN Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT20\/08\/1974 BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, [&hellip;]<\/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-28506","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Hari Singh Mann vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 20 August, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hari Singh Mann vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 20 August, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1974-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-15T10:01:55+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\\\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hari Singh Mann vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 20 August, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-15T10:01:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974\"},\"wordCount\":1059,\"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\\\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974\",\"name\":\"Hari Singh Mann vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 20 August, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-15T10:01:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hari Singh Mann vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 20 August, 1974\"}]},{\"@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":"Hari Singh Mann vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 20 August, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hari Singh Mann vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 20 August, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-15T10:01:55+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\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hari Singh Mann vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 20 August, 1974","datePublished":"1974-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-15T10:01:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974"},"wordCount":1059,"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\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974","name":"Hari Singh Mann vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 20 August, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-15T10:01:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-mann-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-20-august-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hari Singh Mann vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 20 August, 1974"}]},{"@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\/28506","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=28506"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28506\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28506"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28506"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28506"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}