LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) & Ors. v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava

Civil Appeal · 2021 INSC 7Decided 5 Jan 2021
Civil Appeal Nos. 17-18 of 2021, arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 32067-32068 of 2018
Justice L. Nageswara Rao · Justice Hemant Gupta · Justice Ajay Rastogi

Background

A bank clerk was charged with seven instances of misappropriating bank funds through fake credits and debits in customer and his own accounts, and was also separately convicted in a criminal case for the same conduct. A departmental enquiry found six of the seven charges proved; the disciplinary authority disagreed with the enquiry officer's finding on the first charge (which had been found "not proved") and, after issuing a note of disagreement, held that charge proved too, dismissing the employee. The High Court's single judge, upheld by the Division Bench, quashed the dismissal, focused heavily on this first charge and treating the authorities' orders as non-speaking and procedurally unfair.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court agreed that the disciplinary authority's handling of the one disputed charge (Charge No. 1) was indeed procedurally flawed and could not be sustained on its own. However, relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra, it held that where the other six charges were independently proved through the enquiry and were by themselves grave enough to justify dismissal, the defect in one charge does not invalidate the whole punishment: the finding on the remaining charges was severable and sufficient to support dismissal. It also held that the disciplinary and appellate authorities' orders were in fact reasoned and not "non-speaking," and that unconditional trust and integrity are essential for bank employees. The High Court's judgment quashing the dismissal was set aside and the dismissal was restored.

Lesson Learnt

When an employee is found guilty on multiple independent disciplinary charges, a procedural flaw affecting only one of those charges will not by itself overturn the punishment if the remaining charges, proved without any such defect, are serious enough on their own to justify the same penalty.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case