Service Archives - Supreme Court of India Judgements

June 18, 2026 9:57 pm

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 59(d), 92 and 95(1) — Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 — Regn. 7, Schedule — Disciplinary Authority — Competency of Commissioner to dismiss Group ‘A’ Officer — Substitution of Section 59(d) by Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993, w.e.f. 01.10.1993 — Legislative Intent — Post-1993 amendment, the Commissioner is put in complete control both as the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority — Phrase “subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf” used in Section 59(d) refers to regulations that may be made in future and not the existing 1959 Regulations — Commissioner held fully competent to pass dismissal orders against Group ‘A’ officers despite old regulations naming the ‘Corporation’ as the disciplinary authority.

Jun 18, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 646 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH SHARMA Vs. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 645 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. SENTHIL KUMARAN BOSE Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar,…

Service

Disciplinary proceedings — Dismissal from service — Competence of authority — Employee appointed by Superintending Engineer, dismissed by Executive Engineer — Dismissal order held valid as Executive Engineer was competent under MSEDCL Service Regulations to punish an employee of Appellant’s pay grade — Article 311 of Constitution not applicable as Appellant did not hold a civil post under Union or State.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 639 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUREKHA DOMAJI BELE Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TESTING DIVISION, MSEDCL ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil…

Compassionate Appointment Service

Service Law — Compassionate appointment — Nature — Not a vested right — Compassionate appointment is not a condition of service; it is a humane response to sudden financial destitution caused by death-in-harness of the breadwinner — Claim is subject to fulfilment of all eligibility requirements under the applicable rules — However, the same principle that binds the claimant equally binds the State: refusal or deferment of a claim must be grounded in a provision actually applicable to the form of relief claimed, tested on the anvil of Art. 14.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 640 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ATUL CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service

Service Law — Public employment — Recruitment — Mandatory rule — Non-compliance — Whether fatal — Rule 3 of Service Rules, 2003 — Presence and concurrence of departmental supervisory officials at appointment meeting — Role of such officials is supervisory and meant to cross-check compliance with recruitment norms, not to confer eligibility on candidates — Their absence at third (appointment) stage of recruitment does not invalidate entire process where first two stages (advertisement and interview) are free from any fundamental defect — Infraction of Rule 3 is a curable irregularity, not a substantive illegality going to root of appointment.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 641 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GAURAV MEHLA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…

Constitution Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226(1) — Territorial jurisdiction — Writ petition by CAPF personnel — Delhi High Court — Jurisdiction based on situs of respondent’s office —The Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Art. 226(1) of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition preferred by any enrolled member of the Border Security Force or any Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) who is aggrieved by an administrative order of termination of service, by reason of the situs of the offices of the Union of India and the Director General of the concerned CAPF in New Delhi — and this jurisdictional competence subsists notwithstanding that the impugned order of termination was issued from a place outside the territorial limits of the Delhi High Court and that no part of the cause of action arose within such limits — The Union of India and the Director General, BSF are necessary parties to such a writ petition by virtue of Ss. 4 and 5 of the BSF Act and the requirement under R. 22(4) of the BSF Rules that every order of dismissal/removal be reported to the Director General; there is, moreover, a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed.

Jun 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 630 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BAKSISH AHMAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service

Service Law — Promotion — Entitlement to promotion to Chief Medical Director (Higher Administrative Grade) in Indian Railway Medical Service — Appellant was denied promotion despite being eligible, with a junior officer being promoted instead — Appellant’s case was rejected by the Tribunal and High Court based on her grading in Annual Confidential Reports

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 553 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. INDIRA SARANATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : J. K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. )…

Service

All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 — Rule 16(2A) — Voluntary Retirement — Acceptance by Central Government — Central Government has the ultimate authority to accept or reject a Voluntary Retirement (VRS) notice — It is not bound by the State Government’s recommendation and must apply its mind to all relevant facts and circumstances — This power is not unconstrained and is guided by DoPT Guidelines, requiring consideration of pending or contemplated disciplinary proceedings that could lead to a major penalty — The Central Government can accept a VRS request even if a major penalty is possible, but this requires a conscious and well-informed decision — Appeals allowed, order of Central Government rejecting VRS set aside, and matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Jun 2, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 550 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABDUR RAHMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service

Andaman & Nicobar Administration (Police Department) Group ‘C’ Post Recruitment Rules, 2008 — Amendment by Substitution — Effect of — Word “substituted” in amending legislation means deletion of old provision and making new one operative — The process of substitution has two steps: old rule ceases to exist, and new rule comes into existence — Unless legislature intends otherwise, substitution has effect of deleting old rule and making new rule operative, prospective in effect.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 572 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAGDISH PRASAD AND OTHERS Vs. P.M. MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil…

Service

Service Law — Termination of probationer — Regulation 16(3)(a) of Vijaya Bank (Officers’) Regulations, 1982 — Termination simpliciter vs — punitive termination — Termination deemed punitive if based on allegations of misconduct without due process, even if framed as unsatisfactory performance — Bank’s attempt to terminate for misconduct shifted to termination for unsatisfactory performance to bypass inquiry, rendering it unsustainable.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 589 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GENERAL MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS Vs. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S.…

You missed

Service

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 59(d), 92 and 95(1) — Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 — Regn. 7, Schedule — Disciplinary Authority — Competency of Commissioner to dismiss Group ‘A’ Officer — Substitution of Section 59(d) by Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993, w.e.f. 01.10.1993 — Legislative Intent — Post-1993 amendment, the Commissioner is put in complete control both as the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority — Phrase “subject to any regulation that may be made in this behalf” used in Section 59(d) refers to regulations that may be made in future and not the existing 1959 Regulations — Commissioner held fully competent to pass dismissal orders against Group ‘A’ officers despite old regulations naming the ‘Corporation’ as the disciplinary authority.

Jun 18, 2026 sclaw

Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw

RTI

Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw

Category: Service

You missed