Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RA VINDER SINGH versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

Decided
6 March 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1995] 2 S.C.R. 519 · 1995 INSC 163

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 519, margin G

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On the facts and circumstances, it would appear that it is a case warranting our interference. It is seen that the appellant was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the office of Superintendent of Police. On two occasions there was delay in dispatch of some communication. According to the explanation offered by the appellant, the Head Clerk was responsible for the delay for dispatch. It was on the third occasion that he did riot keep office copy of the leave application for earned.leave of the Superintendent of Police. In fact it is not the duty of the dispatch clerk but office/Head Clerk to keep the office copy for record. These three facts were taken into consideration by the Superintendent of Police and by giving insinuating threats or warning to the appellant, a sense of insecurity in continuance of employment was created. Obviously to get over the situation, he might have tendered resignation on January 3, 1991 but he had withdrawn it on February 2, 1991, before the acceptance was communicated to him. On the same day the resignation was accepted.

pp. 519–520, margin G

Under these circumstances, we thillk that it is an appropriate case for the appellant to continue in service. The.appeal is accordingly allowed. The acceptance of resignation dated February 2, 1991 stands quashed and there shall be a direction to reinstate the appellant into service forthwith but without back wages ..

p. 520, margin C

·Appeals allowed.

p. 520, margin D