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

S.K. SINGH versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

Decided
19 October 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 542 · 1996 INSC 1201
Also cited as
  • (1996) 6 SCC 415 (8 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

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.

This petition is filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Gwalior Bench made on March 13, 1996 in L.P.A. No. 80/96.

p. 542, margin F

The admitted position is that the petitioner was working as a Branch Manager in the respondent-Bank. A sum of Rs. 20,000 was found to be short in cash of the Branch. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and an enquiry was conducted and he was removed from service. He challenged the order of his removal in an appeal which was dismis~ed; the writ petition filed by him was also dismissed by the learned single Judge of the High Court and on appeal, it was confirmed.

pp. 542–543, margin G

The only controversy raised in the High Court was that as he was not supplied with the copy of the"-i.9.t.l,u_iiy report, the order of dismissal was bad in law. The learned Single Jud,ge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have considered the e.ff~ct of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Kamnakar and Ors., [1993] 4 SCC 727. The learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court had asked the petitioner as to what prejudice the petitioner had suffered for non-supply thereof. Since there was no adequate explanation offered by the petitioner, the High Court came to the conclusion, that though the copy of the report was not supplied, on the facts, as no prejudice was proved, it was not a case warranting interference.

p. 543, margin A

It is contended by Sri Khanduja, learned counsel for the petitioner that since this Court has laid down the law that supply of copy of the enquiry report is a pre-condition for a competent officer to take disciplinary action, the appropriate course would have been to send back the case to the disciplinary authority. For this course, normally there is no quarrel, as this Court had settled the law that a copy of the report needs to be supplied to the delinquent employee to enable him to make representation against the proposed action or punishment and, thereafter, the authority is required to consider that explanation offered by the petitioner and _then to take decision on the quantum of punishment. In this case, though copy of the report was not supplied, he was asked by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division bench as to what prejudice he suffered on account of non-supply of the report; but he was not able to satisfy the learned Judges as to the prejudice caused to him on account of non-supply of the enquiry report. On the facts, we find that there is no illegality in the decision taken by the High Court.

p. 543, margin C

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. G.N. Petition dismissed.

p. 543, margin F