KARAMBIR SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA — C.A. No. 3916/2019

Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010101322016

Filing Date

18-Mar-2016

Registration No

C.A. No. 3916/2019

Diary Number

10132/2016

Order Date

12-Apr-2019

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Last updated 10-Mar-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KARAMBIR SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Apr-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 08-Apr-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 08-Mar-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 04-Feb-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 11-Jan-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 01-Dec-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 28-Apr-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 28-Apr-2017

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 28-Apr-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 22-Nov-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 22-Nov-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 22-Nov-2016

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 22-Nov-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 22-Nov-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 02-Sep-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 02-Sep-2016

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 02-Sep-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 04-Apr-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 04-Apr-2016

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 04-Apr-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  22. 18-Mar-2016

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 3916/2019

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Karambir Singh v. Union of India Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed reinstatement of Karambir Singh, a CRPF Constable dismissed in 1996 for abandoning his post and assaulting a superior officer, with continuity of service but without back wages. The Court found that conducting a fresh enquiry 27 years after the incident would be impractical and unfruitful, overriding the High Court's direction for fresh proceedings. Key Point: The order was explicitly stated not to be treated as precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case