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 LawSupreme Court of India

General Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Ashok Kumar Singh

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 589Decided 29 May 2026
C.A. No.-004814-004814 - 2017
Justice J.K. Maheshwari · Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Background

The respondent employee joined Vijaya Bank (since amalgamated into Bank of Baroda) as a probationary Assistant General Manager. He was suspended over an allegation of trying to remove confidential tender documents from his office, but the suspension was later revoked "without prejudice" to the bank's right to hold a disciplinary inquiry: an inquiry that was never actually held. Instead, his probation was extended twice on stated grounds of unsatisfactory performance, and he was eventually terminated under the probation regulations. The Calcutta High Court's Single Bench quashed the termination as based on irrelevant considerations, and the Division Bench upheld that decision, prompting the bank's appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the established legal distinction between a termination that is a genuine "termination simpliciter" (based on unsuitability, permissible without a formal inquiry) and one where alleged misconduct is really the "foundation" of the termination dressed up as mere unsatisfactory performance (which requires a formal disciplinary inquiry). Examining the sequence of events: suspension for alleged misconduct, revocation "without prejudice," repeated probation extensions, transfer, and eventually termination relying on largely unsubstantiated performance memos. The Court found the bank never actually held the disciplinary inquiry it had reserved the right to conduct, and instead used "unsatisfactory performance" as a pretext to sidestep that process. It held that what cannot be done directly (dismissing for misconduct without an inquiry) cannot be done indirectly through a disguised performance-based termination, and so upheld the finding that the termination was legally unsustainable. However, taking account of the peculiar facts, the Court modified the relief to 50% back wages (rather than full reinstatement benefits) from termination up to the date of superannuation, with all directions to be complied with by the now-substituted Bank of Baroda.

Lesson Learnt

An employer cannot use a "performance" label to terminate a probationer when the real basis is misconduct. If misconduct is genuinely the foundation of a dismissal, the employer must follow proper disciplinary inquiry procedure, and courts will look past the formal wording of a termination order to its real substance.

General Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Ashok Kumar Singh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware