Judicial Insight
Back to feed
IndiaCivil

Union Of India vs Ramdhani Prasad

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
Sep 24, 2026
Citation
2026 INSC 1047
Judges
Aravind Kumar, Vipul M. Pancholi

AI breakdown

  • A railway officer was removed after overstaying leave by 72 days, claiming it was against the rules as a junior officer dismissed him.
  • The Supreme Court overturned lower courts, stating his removal was valid under the rules by an authorized official.
  • The decision clarified the chain-of-command in dismissals, affecting how similar cases are assessed.

Outcome

For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal is allowed.

Taken from the judgment's conclusion. Check the full text for the exact order.

Parties

  • Applicant

    Union Of India

  • Respondent

    Ramdhani Prasad

Judgment text (excerpt)
Union Of India vs Ramdhani Prasad on 24 September, 2026 Author: Aravind Kumar Bench: Aravind Kumar 2026 INSC 1047 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13645 of 2023) UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … APPELLANTS VERSUS RAMDHANI PRASAD … RESPONDENT JUDGMENT VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal assails the judgment and order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 676 of 1991, whereby the High Court dismissed the second appeal preferred by the present appellants and affirmed the judgment and order dated 07.12.1990 passed in Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1989 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RAHUL KUMAR Date: 2026.09.24 Gorakhpur (for brevity, “the First Appellate Court”). The High 16:59:19 IST Reason: Court held that the respondent had been appointed as a ‘Rakshak’ 1 in the Railway Protection Special Force (for brevity, “the RPSF”) by the Commandant/Chief Security Officer and therefore, his removal by the subordinate authority i.e. the Adjutant/Assistant Commandant, was in violation of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India (for brevity, “the Constitution”). 2.1. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by the present respondent and reversed the judgment and order dated 03.12.1988 passed in Case No. 2662 of 1986 by the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Gorakhpur (for brevity, “the Trial Court”). The First Appellate Court held that the re…
Read the full judgmentpowered by IKanoon

Source: Indian Kanoon (indiankanoon.org). Indian court judgments are public records; the summary and translations are AI-generated.