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

MANGLA GIRI versus REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE VARANASI AND ANR.

Decided
11 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. 7 S.C.R. 624 · 1996 INSC 1197

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.

Delay condoned.

p. 624, margin F

The charge against the petitioner is that as per Special Audit for 1981-82, he defalcated a sum of Rs.18,970.85 in General Distribution System, Rs.20,789.50 under Cash and Carry Programme and had shown shortage of four quintals of sugar worth amount Rs.1540 and 80 Kgs. of sugar worth amount Rs.308 and as per Special Audit report of 1982-83, for a further amount of Rs.23,746.00. An opportunity was given to the petitioner to make good the loss. But he did not deposit the money. Consequently, an order of his removal from service came to be passed but reasons for the same were not assigned. He filed an appeal before the Regional Administrative Committee which dismissed the same. When the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.31643/90 the High Court in .the impugned order dated April 17, 1996 dismissed the writ petition. Thus, this special leave petition.

pp. 624–625, margin F

A contention has been raised by the petitioner that he has not been given an opportunity to defend and except for the year 1991, no direction was given earlier and, therefore, he was denied of reasonable opportunity to defend himself resulting in violation of principle of natural justice. We find no force in the contention. When the petitioner was given opportunity to make good the loss and he did not deposit the same, it is too difficult to believe that the locker was opened in his absence and the amount was taken by somebody in his absence when he was on leave due to medical grounds. The theory now set up is too fantastic to be believed. Under those circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the High. Court warranting interference.

p. 625, margin A

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

p. 625, margin C