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

Satyendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Not available · 2024 INSC 873Decided 18 Nov 2024
Not available
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

Satyendra Singh, a government employee, was subjected to departmental disciplinary proceedings that resulted in a major penalty. The State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, quashed the penalty in 2015 after finding fault with the inquiry. However, the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench allowed a writ petition filed against that Tribunal order and restored the penalty in 2018, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that under the applicable 1999 disciplinary rules and settled precedent, a valid inquiry resulting in a major penalty requires that oral evidence actually be recorded to substantiate the charges against the employee. Since the department had led no oral evidence whatsoever in the inquiry against Satyendra Singh, the entire inquiry was vitiated and legally non est (void). The Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the Tribunal's well-reasoned decision, set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the Tribunal's order quashing the penalty, and directed payment of all consequential monetary benefits within two months, with 6% annual interest if delayed.

Lesson Learnt

A departmental disciplinary inquiry that imposes a major penalty is void if the employer never actually records oral evidence to prove the charges: unproven paper allegations cannot support serious punitive action against a government employee.

Satyendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware