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

State of Rajasthan vs Bhupendra Singh

Not available · 2024 INSC 592Decided 8 Aug 2024
Not available
Justice Hima Kohli · Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Background

The respondent, a cooperative societies officer, faced a lengthy disciplinary history from the late 1970s onward involving alleged financial irregularities, unauthorized appointments, and refusal to hand over charge when transferred or reverted. After a departmental enquiry found several charges proved, he was removed from service in 1993. Decades of litigation followed, and eventually the Rajasthan High Court's Single Judge and Division Bench quashed the removal, holding the enquiry findings were unsupported by evidence and vitiated by lack of reasoning.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 by re-appreciating the evidence like an appellate court, contrary to settled law that a writ court cannot reassess the adequacy of evidence in a departmental enquiry. It found the removal order was reasoned, based on documented irregularities that the employee never disproved, and that he had been given fair notice and opportunity to respond. The Court restored the 1993 removal order but, given the respondent's advanced age and retirement, directed that any payments already made to him not be recovered.

Lesson Learnt

Courts reviewing departmental enquiries under writ jurisdiction cannot act as a court of appeal and reweigh evidence; interference is justified only where there is no evidence at all or a genuine breach of natural justice, not merely because another view was possible.

State of Rajasthan vs Bhupendra Singh – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware