{"id":47681,"date":"2002-08-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-08-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002"},"modified":"2016-12-24T18:29:47","modified_gmt":"2016-12-24T12:59:47","slug":"jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002","title":{"rendered":"Jaipal Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 August, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jaipal Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 August, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>  S.B. Sinha, C.J.  <\/p>\n<p> 1. The petitioner was enlisted as Constable in CRPF on or<br \/>\nabout 27th September 1988. For 128 days&#8217; alleged unauthorized leave,<br \/>\ndepartmental proceedings were initiated against him, as the petitioner,<br \/>\ndespite an order to take part in the Inter-Sector Shooting Competition to be<br \/>\nheld on 25th February 2000, went on casual leave from 1st March 2000 to<br \/>\n6th March 2000 with holidays falling on 29th February 2000 and Sunday 5th<br \/>\nMarch 2000.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. Although he was to report on duty on 6th March 2000, he<br \/>\nremained absent till 5th July 2000. He was, there from, shown absent from<br \/>\nduty. By a Regd. Letter dated 22nd April 2000, he was directed to report to<br \/>\nduty immediately but he neither complied therewith nor sent any<br \/>\ninformation to the concerned officer. As he failed to report to his duty, a<br \/>\nwarrant of arrest was issued against him. However, he reported on duty<br \/>\non 5th July 2000 before the Commandant Group Sector, CRPF,<br \/>\nMukammaghat.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. In the departmental proceeding the petitioner was asked to<br \/>\nsubmit his written statement, list of witnesses and documents etc. before<br \/>\nthe Inquiry Officer. On 12th September 2000, he appeared before the<br \/>\nInquiry Officer and produced two certificates alleging that he was ill<br \/>\nduring the afore-mentioned period. He also produced a First Information<br \/>\nReport alleging theft of a suitcase containing clothes, Identity Card, Leave<br \/>\nCertificate etc. <\/p>\n<p> 4. The Inquiry Officer in his report dated 18th September<br \/>\n2000, on the basis of the materials brought on records by the parties inter<br \/>\nalia, found that although the petitioner complained that he had been<br \/>\nsuffering from paralysis, the Medical Certificate produced by him<br \/>\ndisclosed that he had been suffering only from pain. He also accepted that<br \/>\nthe registered letters sent to him to resume hi duties had been received.<br \/>\nThe petitioner was, therefore, found guilty of the charges levelled against.<br \/>\nHe was thereafter by an order dated 5th December 2000 dismissed from<br \/>\nservices by the Commandant, 36 Battalion, CRPF, Kalkaji, New Delhi.<br \/>\nThereagainst, he preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General in<br \/>\nterms of Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules wherein he, inter alia, accepted that<br \/>\nduring the period of his unauthorized absence, he even did not report his<br \/>\nsickness or submitted any application for leave. He, therefore, prayed:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;Sir, the punishment of dismissal from<br \/>\nservice is very harsh considering the cause<br \/>\nof my absence from duty and I, therefore,<br \/>\npray for a sympathetic consideration by your<br \/>\nhonour and pray for quashing of order of<br \/>\ndismissal passed by the worthy<br \/>\nCommandant and further pray for my<br \/>\nreinstatement in service. Sir, I assure of not<br \/>\nrepeating the mistake which I did as stated<br \/>\nabove and I further assure your honour of<br \/>\nsincere and dedicated service without any<br \/>\nroom for any complaint in future.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. He filed a supplementary petition of appeal on 11th April<br \/>\n2001 praying for reinstatement upon setting aside departmental<br \/>\nproceedings. By an order dated 2nd August 2001, the said appeal was also<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. In the counter-affidavit, it has been pointed out that during<br \/>\nthe period of service, he had been awarded several punishment and<br \/>\nfurther he overstayed of leave unauthorisedly which or an under:\n<\/p>\n<p> (a) 28 days confinement to Q.G. by<br \/>\nComdt. After DE for 107 days OSL.\n<\/p>\n<p> (b) 10 days confinement to line w.e.f.<br \/>\n24.09.1994 to 03.10.1994 by Comdt. As he<br \/>\nhad deserted line himself for two days<br \/>\non route from 19.09.1994 to 20.09.1994<br \/>\nwhile he was going to B.H.I. for attender<br \/>\nduty of Lnk. Vijay Kumar.\n<\/p>\n<p> (c) 34 days OSL from 25.07.1992 to<br \/>\n27.08.1992.\n<\/p>\n<p> (d) 107 days OSL from 13.05.1993 to<br \/>\n27.08.1993.\n<\/p>\n<p> (e) one day OSL on 29.01.1996   <\/p>\n<p> (f) one day OSL on 24.06.1996&#8243;\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. It has further been pointed out that although the petitioner<br \/>\nwas said to have been under treatment in a private nursing home at<br \/>\nShahdara but he submitted his Fitness Certificate issued by one Dr.<br \/>\nRavinder Mohan of Ghaziabad which appeared to be a fabricated one and<br \/>\nin any event thereby it had not been proved that he was suffering from any<br \/>\nillness.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the<br \/>\nrespondents completely misdirected themselves in passing the impugned<br \/>\norders in so far as they failed to take into consideration that having regard<br \/>\nto the long service of the petitioner, the punishment of dismissal from<br \/>\nservices is disproportionate to the charge of misconduct levelled against<br \/>\nhim.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed<br \/>\non a decision of a learned single Judge of this court in  Parimal Singh v.<br \/>\nUnion of India and Ors., 2001 IV AD (Delhi) 679 wherein, inter alia, it has<br \/>\nbeen held:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;7. The Disciplinary Authority was well<br \/>\naware of the discretion available to him<br \/>\nwhich is palpably evident from the<br \/>\nunderlined portions in the extract of the<br \/>\nimpugned order given above. He himself<br \/>\nstated that he could have taken a lenient<br \/>\nview. This is also borne out from the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 11 of the Act itself. It<br \/>\ndoes not mandate that a dismissal order must<br \/>\nbe passed in all cases. The petitioner could<br \/>\nhave been punished with a reduction in rank,<br \/>\nor a fine not exceeding one month&#8217;s pay and<br \/>\nallowances, or confinement to quarters etc.<br \/>\nor removal from any office of distinction or<br \/>\nspecial emolument. The officer did not<br \/>\ncorrectly exercise the discretion expected of<br \/>\nhim in holding that the intentions of the<br \/>\ndelinquent were purposeful. Had his action<br \/>\nnot been &#8216;purposeful&#8217;, necessary means read or<br \/>\nguilt would have been absent and he would<br \/>\nnot have been liable to any punishment. The<br \/>\nDisciplinary Authority ought to have also<br \/>\nkept in mind the fact that the petitioner had<br \/>\nalready served for over seven long years and<br \/>\nthat his ignorance was writ large by the fact<br \/>\nthat he could have otherwise been recruited<br \/>\nby invoking the relaxation contained in Rule<br \/>\n11(h) of the Rules. Courts of law do not<br \/>\nnormally review the exercise of jurisdiction.<br \/>\nSuch judicial review is, however, called for<br \/>\nwhere the exercise of discretion is perverse<br \/>\nor lacking in substance.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. The factual matrix involved in the said decision is quite<br \/>\ndifferent. In that case, this court inter alia made the said observations<br \/>\nhaving regard to the fact that a forged document was allegedly filed only<br \/>\nas regards age which was within the power of relaxation of the competent<br \/>\nauthority. However, we do not agree in the broad proposition of law laid<br \/>\ndown therein.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. The learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the<br \/>\ndecision of the Apex Court in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1857918\/\">Union of India v. Giriraj Sharma,<\/a>  wherein the Apex Court held:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;2. Mr. Jain the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant Union of India contended that the<br \/>\ninterpretation placed on Section 11(1) of the<br \/>\nCentral Reserve Police Force Act, 1949<br \/>\n(hereinafter called &#8216;the Act&#8217;) is not correct<br \/>\nand it is on account of this erroneous<br \/>\nunderstanding of the provision that the High<br \/>\nCourt quashed the order of dismissal. In<br \/>\nsupport of his contention he invited our<br \/>\nattention to a decision of the Rajasthan High<br \/>\nCourt . He<br \/>\nalso relied on certain other decisions but it is<br \/>\nsufficient to state that according to him the<br \/>\nlearned Judges of the High Court had<br \/>\ncommitted an error in interpreting the said<br \/>\nsub-section. In our opinion it is not<br \/>\nnecessary for us to construe Sub-section (1)<br \/>\nof Section 11 of the Act in the backdrop of<br \/>\nthe fact of the present case. Assuming Mr.<br \/>\nJain is right, we are of the opinion that so far<br \/>\nas the present case is concerned the<br \/>\nallegation is in regard to the incumbent<br \/>\nhaving over-stayed the period of leave by 12<br \/>\ndays. The incumbent while admitting the<br \/>\nfact that he had over stayed the period of<br \/>\nleave had explained the circumstances in<br \/>\nwhich it was inevitable for him to continue<br \/>\non leave as he was forced to do so on<br \/>\naccount of unexpected circumstances. We<br \/>\nare of the opinion that the punishment of<br \/>\ndismissal for over-staying the period of 12<br \/>\ndays in the said circumstances which have<br \/>\nnot been controverter in the counter is harsh<br \/>\nsince the circumstances show that it was not<br \/>\nhis intention to willfully flout the order, but<br \/>\nthe circumstances force him to do so. In that<br \/>\nview of the matter the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe respondent has fairly conceded that it<br \/>\nwas open to the authorities to visit him with<br \/>\na minor penalty. If they so desired, but a<br \/>\nmajor penalty of dismissal from service was<br \/>\nnot called for. We agree with this<br \/>\nsubmission.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. In the instant case, the petitioner not only was<br \/>\nunauthorisedly absent for 128 days, it was found as of fact that he had<br \/>\nproduced a bogus Medical Certificate. His defense had been disbelieved<br \/>\nfor cogent and sufficient reasons. His past conduct, as noticed<br \/>\nhereinbefore, has also been taken notice of by the disciplinary authority.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. The question as to whether in a situation of this nature, this<br \/>\ncourt should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction or not is squarely<br \/>\ncovered by a recent decision of the Apex Court in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1285195\/\">Om Kumar and Ors. v.<br \/>\nUnion of India,<\/a> 2000(8) Supreme 217 : AIR 2000 SC 3689 wherein it was<br \/>\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;Where an administrative decision<br \/>\nrelating to punishment in disciplinary cases<br \/>\nis questioned as &#8216;arbitrary&#8217; under Article 14,<br \/>\nthe Court is confined to Wednesbury<br \/>\nprinciples as a secondary reviewing<br \/>\nauthority. The Court will not apply<br \/>\nproportionality as a primary reviewing Court<br \/>\nbecause no issue of fundamental freedoms<br \/>\nnor of discrimination under Article 14<br \/>\napplies in such a context. The Court while<br \/>\nreviewing punishment and if it is satisfied<br \/>\nthat Wednesbury principles are violated, it<br \/>\nhas normally to remit the matter to the<br \/>\nadministrator for a fresh decision as to the<br \/>\nquantum of punishment. Only in rare cases<br \/>\nwhere there has been long delay in the time<br \/>\ntaken by the disciplinary proceedings and in<br \/>\nthe time taken in the Courts and such<br \/>\nextreme or rare cases can the Court<br \/>\nsubstitute its own view as to the quantum of<br \/>\npunishment.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. In view of the afore-mentioned decision of the Apex Court<br \/>\nwherein a large number of earlier decisions had been taken into<br \/>\nconsideration, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case wherein this<br \/>\ncourt should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p> 15. This writ petition is dismissed accordingly without any<br \/>\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Jaipal Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 August, 2002 Author: S Sinha Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. The petitioner was enlisted as Constable in CRPF on or about 27th September 1988. For 128 days&#8217; alleged unauthorized leave, departmental proceedings were initiated against him, [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47681","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Jaipal Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 August, 2002 - 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\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jaipal Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-24T12:59:47+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\\\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jaipal Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 August, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-24T12:59:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1688,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002\",\"name\":\"Jaipal Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-24T12:59:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jaipal Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 August, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Jaipal Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 August, 2002 - 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\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jaipal Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-24T12:59:47+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\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jaipal Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 August, 2002","datePublished":"2002-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-24T12:59:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002"},"wordCount":1688,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002","name":"Jaipal Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-24T12:59:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaipal-singh-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-29-august-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jaipal Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 August, 2002"}]},{"@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\/47681","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=47681"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47681\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47681"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47681"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47681"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}