Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Labour & Industrial LawDelhi High Court

Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Sh. Rohtash Singh

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026:DHC:8042Decided 16 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
W.P.(C) 5368/2005CNR: DLHC010709292005
Justice Amit Mahajan

Background

Rohtash Singh, a DTC conductor, was accused in 1988 of collecting fares from four ticketless passengers without issuing tickets and of carrying ₹29.65 in excess cash; he was removed from service in 1989. The Labour Court found the enquiry itself unfair (because DTC led no evidence before it to justify the enquiry's fairness) and, examining the record itself, held the ticket-related charge unproved because the person who had actually recorded the passenger statements and checked the cash was never personally produced as a witness before it, though it did accept the excess-cash charge and ordered reinstatement with 25% back wages. DTC challenged this before the High Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held the Labour Court had wrongly treated non-production of that one recording official as fatal, when the enquiry record already contained the signed checking report, the countersigned passenger statements, and the conductor's own admission of fault at the time of checking, plus another raiding-team member's corroborating testimony. It reiterated that departmental enquiries need only "some evidence," not exhaustive corroboration from every possible witness, and that this threshold was clearly met here. The dismissal was restored and the Labour Court's reinstatement order set aside.

Lesson Learnt

A Labour Court cannot invalidate a workplace enquiry's finding of guilt purely because one particular witness among several wasn't personally called to testify before it, if the documentary record, signed reports, admissions, and other witnesses' corroboration, otherwise clearly supports the finding.

Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Sh. Rohtash Singh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware