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

NARAYAN DATTATRAYA RAMTEERTHAKHAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Decided
20 November 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI, K. VENKATASWAMI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 939 · 1996 INSC 1348
Also cited as
  • (1997) 1 SCC 299 (34 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1997 SC 2148 (23 citing judgments)
  • (1997) SCC(L&S) 152 (13 citing judgments)
  • MANU/SC/0526/1997 (2 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.

Cited by

Cited in 3 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.

Delay condoned.

p. 939, margin F

The special leave petition arises from the order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, made in OA No. 558 of 1991. The finding recorded by all the authorities is that the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1440 deducted from the employees and had not deposited until asked to pay the same in 1985. Thereby, the authorities have concluded that the petitioner has committed misconduct. On that finding, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty. The disciplinary authority removed him from service. The Petitioner challenged the order in the High Court. The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the alternative remedy. The Tribunal found that there is no proper explanation for the inordinate delay in assailing the disciplinary action. That apait, even on merits also, we do not think that there is any case made out for interference. The finding is that the petitioner has committed misappropriation of the public money and his removal from service is an appropriate order.

pp. 939–940, margin F

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the petitioner has not committed any misappropriation and that he was forced to deposit the money. We cannot accept the contention in view of the fact that the petitioner himself had deposited the amount. It is then contended that the preliminary enquiry was not properly conducted and, therefore, the enquiry is vitiated by principles ofnaturaljustice. We find no force in the contention. The preliminary enquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after the issue of the charge-sheet. The former action would be to find whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. After full-fledged enquiry was held, the preliminary enquiry had lost its importance.

p. 940, margin B

Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. R.P. Petition dismissed.

p. 940, margin D