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.

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr.

Civil AppealDecided 2 May 2022
Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2022
Ajay Rastogi · Sanjiv Khanna · C.T. Ravikumar as the second judge

Background

The appellant was selected as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force in 2011. After he applied but before he was formally inducted, a criminal case (later found to be false, with the complainant retracting and the appellant honourably acquitted) was registered against him. When he filled out his attestation form in 2014, he answered "No" to questions about whether he had ever been arrested or prosecuted. He was subsequently discharged from service for suppressing this information, and the Delhi High Court upheld his discharge.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court applied the guidelines laid down by a three-judge bench in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, which require an employer to consider the nature and gravity of the suppressed matter rather than mechanically terminating an employee for any suppression. Here, the criminal case was trivial, had ended in a clean acquittal after the complainant's own retraction, had no element of moral turpitude, and had arisen only after the appellant's original application (not at the outset). The Court found the discharging authority had not applied its mind to these factors or to its own duty under RPF Rule 52 to assess overall suitability, and held the discharge order unsustainable. It quashed the discharge and directed reinstatement with full notional benefits (pay, seniority, etc.), though without back wages for the unserved period.

Lesson Learnt

An employer cannot automatically terminate someone for failing to disclose a prosecution in a verification form: the nature of the offence, whether it ended in a clean acquittal, and the circumstances must all be weighed before such a serious step is taken.

Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware