Sealed Cover Procedure – Government Notings – Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – During the hearing of the writ petitions, the Advocate General of Odisha submitted Government notings in a sealed cover; the Court perused the same, re-sealed the cover and directed its safe custody with the Court Secretary per Order No. 8 dated 08.04.2026 – Petitioners filed I.As. contending that non-disclosure of the notings to them was a grave violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem, and that perusal by the Court of undisclosed material would result in bias at the time of adjudication – State filed a memo stating it would not rely on the notings and sought return of the sealed cover – Held: All I.As. for disclosure or recall of Order No. 8 are dismissed; prayer for return of the sealed cover also refused [Paras 4–7, 17–18].

Government Notings – No Legal Sanctity – Not a Decision of the Government – It is settled law that notings recorded in official Government files at any level, including by Ministers, do not constitute a decision of the Government unless sanctified and acted upon by an order issued in the name of the President or Governor as required under Articles 77(2) and 166(2) of the Constitution, communicated to the affected parties – Such notings do not confer any right or adversely affect the rights of any person, cannot be challenged in a Court of law, and cannot form the basis for seeking relief – They may always be reviewed, reversed or overruled by the same or higher authority – Therefore, the notings kept in the sealed cover neither confer rights on the petitioners nor affect their rights in the writ petitions [Paras 15–16].

Sealed Cover – Disposal – Balance of Fairness – Since the State declared it would not rely on the notings and sought their return, and since the notings have no legal sanctity as Government decisions, the ends of justice are best served by directing that the sealed cover shall neither be opened nor referred to in any judgment in the I.As. or the writ petitions — the sealed cover to be handed over to the Registrar (Judicial) for safe custody until called for by a specific judicial order [Para 17–19].

Decision: All four I.As. dismissed — Prayer of the State for return of the sealed cover also refused — Sealed cover containing Government notings directed to be handed over by the Court Secretary to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court for safe custody until required by specific judicial order or direction.

Labour Law – Industrial Tribunal – Violation of Natural Justice – Premature Closure of Evidence – Employer dismissed workman without holding domestic enquiry and was therefore entitled to lead evidence before the Tribunal – Cross-examination of the employer’s witness OPW-1 had commenced but remained incomplete when the Tribunal, by orders dated 20.11.2024 and 20.12.2024, peremptorily closed evidence of both parties – Repeated bona fide requests for adjournment were rejected without adequate reason – Documents specifically called for by the Tribunal in its own earlier orders were never allowed to be placed on record – Held: Closure of evidence before completion of cross-examination and denial of opportunity to adduce further evidence, in spite of sufficient cause shown, is a gross violation of the audi alteram partem rule and an abuse of process – Award set aside [Paras 1, 4, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19].

Employer’s Right to Lead Evidence Before Tribunal – No Domestic Enquiry – Where no domestic enquiry has been held prior to dismissal of a workman, the employer is entitled as of right to lead evidence before the Tribunal for the first time to justify the dismissal – If such opportunity is asked for, the Tribunal has no power to refuse – The Tribunal cannot, without permitting evidence, straightway direct reinstatement of the dismissed employee – Once misconduct is proved either in a domestic enquiry or by evidence led before the Tribunal, the punishment imposed cannot be interfered with except where it is so harsh as to suggest victimisation – Held: These principles, as settled by the Constitution Bench in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and reiterated in State of Uttarakhand v. Sureshwati, apply with full force to the present case [Paras 2, 5, 7, 8, 15, 16, 21].

Defective Enquiry – Parity with No Enquiry – A defective domestic enquiry stands on the same footing as no enquiry – In either case the entire matter is at large before the Tribunal, which must decide on the evidence whether the dismissal or discharge was justified – The Tribunal is not confined to examining only whether a prima facie case exists but must itself determine whether the misconduct alleged is proved [Para 16].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Impugned Award dated 20.02.2025 set aside – Case No. 03/2021 restored to the file of the 3^rd Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata, for fresh adjudication – Petitioner permitted to adduce fresh and/or further evidence in accordance with law – Tribunal directed to pass a fresh award preferably within 3 months from communication of this order, without being influenced by the earlier award – Court clarified it has not gone into the merits of the case [Paras 19, 20, 21].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Compromise – Non-Compoundable Offences – Corporate Accused – Petitioner/A9, Mahindra World City Developers Limited, faced trial before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Chengalpet in C.C. No. 251 of 2020 for offences under Sections 120(b), 465, 468 and 471 IPC, being the end-purchaser in an alleged chain of forged title documents in respect of a five-cent plot in Survey No. 118/4C at Veerapuram, Madura Malaiyambakkam – De facto complainant Raji died on 17.09.2019 and his legal heirs (R2 to R8) were impleaded – The parties arrived at a settlement whereby the legal heirs agreed to accept three alternate properties in lieu of the disputed property, documents for which were submitted for registration before the Joint Registrar-II, Chengalpet on 08.04.2026 – Identities of R2 to R8 confirmed before Court by the Special Sub Inspector of Police; all confirmed the settlement – Held: Even though the offences are non-compoundable, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings alive; quashment ordered against the petitioner and all co-accused similarly placed [Paras 9–15].

Impleadment of Legal Heirs – Death of De Facto Complainant – Legal heirs of the deceased de facto complainant filed impleading petition in Crl.M.P. No. 7429 of 2026 and were impleaded as Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 by order of the Court [Para 2].

Exercise of Inherent Jurisdiction – Guidelines – Non-Compoundable Offences – Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) guided by the Supreme Court's principles on quashing proceedings in non-compoundable cases, exercising due caution as directed, while giving effect to the genuine settlement arrived at between the parties [Para 14].

Decision: Criminal Original Petition allowed – Proceedings in C.C. No. 251 of 2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Chengalpet quashed against the petitioner and all co-accused similarly placed – Connected Crl.M.P. Nos. 6354 and 6355 of 2026 closed.

Public Tender – Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Article 226 – Courts do not sit as appellate authorities over administrative choices in tender matters and cannot substitute judicial opinion for administrative wisdom — role of court confined to examining decision-making process and not merits of the decision — interference justified only where decision is mala fide, so arbitrary that no reasonable authority would adopt it, or where public interest suffers — general allegations of favouritism unsupported by cogent material cannot convert commercial disappointment into constitutional challenge [Paras 17–18, 21, 38].

EOI Process – Presentation Stage – Not Ultra Vires – Introduction of a presentation-based assessment carrying 30 marks after technical evaluation carrying 70 marks held to be within the permissible administrative discretion of the tendering authority — evaluation of operational capacity, infrastructure preparedness and implementation methodology in a large-scale nutrition welfare scheme cannot remain confined to paper credentials alone — all technically qualified participants subjected to the same presentation stage uniformly — no essential eligibility condition altered so as to prejudice any bidder [Paras 24–28, 32–33].

Technical Qualification – No Vested Right to Selection – Qualifying at one stage of a tender process merely entitles participation in the next stage and does not guarantee award of projects — contention that technical qualification alone created a vested right to selection rejected [Para 29].

Transparency – Non-Disclosure of Interim Scores – Not Ipso Facto Fatal – Transparency in State contracting does not necessarily mandate contemporaneous disclosure of individual scoring sheets unless stipulated under tender conditions — non-disclosure of presentation marks cannot invalidate process in absence of showing that evaluation was arbitrary, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations [Paras 34–37].

Tender Timelines – Directory Unless Mandatory Consequence Prescribed – Issuance of selection list beyond 120-day validity period of EOI does not vitiate the process where timeline is not expressly coupled with a mandatory consequence clause — petitioners having participated in subsequent stages without objection are disentitled from raising this ground after non-selection [Paras 42–43].

Quashing of Selection List – Public Welfare Scheme – Courts must be reluctant to quash selection processes affecting implementation of large-scale public nutrition welfare schemes serving a large beneficiary population, unless illegality is clearly established [Para 45].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed — challenge to Impugned Selection List dated 20.02.2023 fails — pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Forgery – Forwarding of Complaint – Section 175(3) BNSS – Handwriting Expert Report – Sole Basis Insufficient – The second respondent filed a complaint alleging that the petitioners had fabricated and antedated an Agreement of Sale purportedly executed by K.S. Jeganathan (since deceased), with the signature therein found to be forged as per a Forensic Examination Report dated 15.04.2025 – The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint for police investigation solely on the basis of the said expert opinion – Held: A handwriting expert's opinion is a relevant piece of evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act but is not conclusive proof; forwarding of complaint based solely on such opinion is erroneous – Impugned order set aside [Paras 10, 12, 13].

Criminal Proceedings – Parallel Civil Proceedings – Bar Against Prejudice – When the genuineness of the very document forming the basis of the criminal complaint is already under challenge and pending adjudication before a Civil Court, allowing criminal proceedings to run simultaneously based only on a handwriting expert's opinion would prejudice the parties and amount to abuse of process of court – Continuation of such criminal proceedings is unsustainable [Paras 11, 12].

Expert Evidence – Handwriting Comparison – Not Exact Science – Advisory Nature – An opinion rendered by a handwriting expert is advisory and relevant but not determinative – Unlike thumb impression analysis, handwriting comparison is not an exact science – Courts retain the power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to independently compare admitted and disputed writings – A criminal complaint cannot be set in motion on the exclusive basis of a handwriting expert's report [Paras 12, 13].

Distinguished: Accamma Sam Jacob v. State of Karnataka, 2026 INSC 362 – Distinguished on facts as the forgery allegations therein were supported by other materials and surrounding circumstances beyond the handwriting expert's report, unlike the present case where the entire allegation rested solely on the expert opinion [Para 9].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Order dated 16.02.2026 passed by Judicial Magistrate No. II, Dharmapuri in Crl.M.P. No. 1622 of 2025 set aside – Connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

Land Acquisition – Reference Proceedings – Section 64, RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Setting Aside of Ex-Parte Order – Condonation of Delay in Filing Written Statement – Challenge Dismissed – Petitioner's land of approximately 10 acres at Village Vikhroli, Taluka Kurla, acquired by award dated 15.09.2022 – Petitioner filed reference for enhancement of compensation, which was amended twice to escalate claim from Rs. 572 crores to approximately Rs. 1972 crores – Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Collector and Deputy Collector) failed to appear before the LARR Authority for nine hearings, leading to ex-parte order dated 15.03.2024 – Over a year later, said respondents filed applications for setting aside the ex-parte order and for permission to file their written statement – LARR Authority allowed the same by impugned order dated 21.08.2025 – Held: Sufficient cause established on account of absence of institutional mechanism for representing the State before the newly constituted LARR Authority and delay in identifying special counsel – Substantial escalation in the petitioner's own claim also a relevant consideration – No prejudice caused to petitioner – Order upheld [Paras 22–25].

Amendment of Written Statement – Plea of Limitation – Jurisdiction of LARR Authority – Liberal Approach to Amendment – Beneficiary corporation (Respondent No. 3 — NHSRCL) had filed its written statement on 05.04.2024 – Nearly two years later, sought amendment to incorporate plea of limitation – LARR Authority allowed the same by impugned order dated 18.02.2026 – Petitioner contended that only the Collector under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 has jurisdiction to decide the question of limitation and that the LARR Authority lacks such jurisdiction – Held: LARR Authority, having replaced the reference court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has the jurisdiction to decide whether the reference was filed within limitation – It would be illogical to hold that the LARR Authority can decide the reference on merits but cannot determine whether it has jurisdiction to enter upon the reference in the first place – Issue of limitation can be raised at any stage as it goes to the root of jurisdiction – Allowing the plea does not amount to accepting it; petitioner retains full liberty to contest the same – No prejudice caused – Amendment rightly allowed [Paras 26–32].

Jurisdiction of LARR Authority – Limitation – Precedent Clarified – Petitioner relied upon Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer v. S. V. Global Mill Limited, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 171, and this Court's order in Hirabai Sonu Wanjari (Kale) v. State of Maharashtra (WP No. 1508 of 2026, dated 10.02.2026) to urge that the Collector's executive function under Section 64 precludes the LARR Authority from examining limitation – Held: The said judgments do not support such a proposition – The position of law in Mohammed Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 572, and followed by this Court in Shantaram Ganesh Shenoy v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ratnagiri, 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 314, that the reference court has jurisdiction to examine whether the reference was made within limitation, applies with equal force to the LARR Authority [Paras 26–28].

Reference Proceedings – Original Proceedings – Writ Interference – Scope – Held: Reference proceedings being original proceedings in which parties lead evidence, once the LARR Authority has exercised its discretion in a reasonable manner, it would not be appropriate for the High Court in writ jurisdiction to interfere – Petitioner's remedy lies in contesting the matter on merits before the LARR Authority [Para 33].

Order – LARR Authority directed to take up and decide the reference proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six months – Interim orders operating in both writ petitions vacated [Para 34].

Decision: Both Writ Petitions dismissed — Impugned orders dated 21.08.2025 and 18.02.2026 of the LARR Authority upheld — LARR Authority at Nashik directed to decide reference proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six months — Interim orders vacated.

Service Law – Regularization – Posthumous – Adhoc Employee – 21 Years of Continuous Service – Empowered Committee Recommendation – Arbitrary Exclusion – The deceased employee was engaged as Junior Assistant on stop-gap/adhoc basis in 1993 and rendered uninterrupted service until his death in 2014 – His case was duly recommended by the Empowered Committee under the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 – Yet, he was excluded from the regularization order dated 11.01.2013 while his juniors, including one Farooq Ahmed Zargar, were regularized – Held: Such exclusion is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – Deceased entitled to regularization from the date his juniors were regularized along with all consequential benefits [Paras 6, 7, 13].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Hostile Discrimination – Equally Situated Employees – State as Model Employer – Once the Empowered Committee recommended the deceased alongside similarly situated juniors who were subsequently regularized, the State cannot justify differential treatment on the ground that the deceased was initially engaged on adhoc or temporary basis – The State being a model employer cannot follow a hire-and-fire policy after extracting more than two decades of work – Such conduct amounts to exploitative engagement and violates the guarantee of equality [Paras 7, 8, 10].

Service Law – Adhoc Engagement – Character of Permanency – Long and Continuous Service – Continuity in service for a period exceeding 21 years, performing permanent and perennial duties, cannot be characterized as adhoc or temporary – With the passage of time, such engagement acquires the character of permanency and the State cannot disavow its obligations on technical grounds [Paras 9, 11].

Repeal of Statute – Accrued Rights – Vested Rights Not Extinguished – The contention that the Act of 2010 stands repealed and that the J&K Casual Workers Rules, 2017 also stand repealed post the Reorganization Act, 2019, was rejected – A right that had already accrued to the deceased employee prior to repeal cannot be taken away by the mere fact of repeal of the enabling legislation [Para 9].

Widow – Compassionate Consideration – Posthumous Regularization – Family Pension and Retiral Benefits – The respondent is a widow seeking posthumous regularization so that she and her children may receive family pension, retiral benefits and other statutory dues – The State is expected to act with compassion in such cases and not prolong litigation on technicalities [Para 12].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench dated 30.09.2025 directing regularization of the deceased w.e.f. the date his juniors were regularized and grant of all consequential benefits upheld – No error of fact or law found in the Tribunal's order.

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Superannuation – Initiation of Proceedings – Charge-Sheet Issued After Retirement – Regulation 20(3)(iii), PNB (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 – Charge-Sheet and Withholding of Retirement Dues Quashed – Petitioner, former General Manager of Punjab National Bank, was served with a show cause notice on 28.02.2017 (his last day of service) in connection with NPAs at PNB's London subsidiary – Charge-sheet under the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1977 was issued on 01.03.2017, i.e., after his superannuation – Retirement order directed that disciplinary proceedings would continue as if the petitioner were in service, invoking Regulation 20(3)(iii) – Held: Regulation 20(3)(iii) can be invoked only when disciplinary proceedings have been validly initiated while the officer is in service – Since the charge-sheet was issued after superannuation, proceedings were not initiated while the petitioner was in service – The entire disciplinary proceeding and the consequential withholding of retirement dues are unsustainable in law – Charge-sheet and order withholding retirement dues quashed – Respondent directed to release retirement dues within 12 weeks [Paras 7–23].

Initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings – When Commenced – Show Cause Notice vs. Charge-Sheet – It is settled law that disciplinary proceedings are not initiated merely by issuance of a show cause notice – Proceedings are initiated only upon issuance of a charge-sheet, which requires application of mind by the competent authority to the material on record – In the present case, the show cause notice was issued on 28.02.2017 while the petitioner was still in service, but the charge-sheet was issued on 01.03.2017, after superannuation – Held: Show cause notice does not amount to initiation of disciplinary proceedings – Disciplinary proceedings were thus not initiated while the petitioner was in service [Paras 8–10].

Regulation 20(3)(ii) – Deemed Pendency – Limited Scope – Regulation 20(3)(ii) provides that disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to be pending against an officer who has been placed under suspension or has been served with a show cause notice – Held: This provision operates only for the limited purpose of Regulation 20(3)(i), which deals with an officer resigning or leaving service during pendency of disciplinary proceedings – The legal fiction of deemed pendency under Clause (ii) cannot be extended to justify continuation of proceedings under Clause (iii) against a superannuated officer – Bank rightly did not invoke Clause (ii) in its retirement order, being aware of this position [Paras 11–17].

Discipline and Appeal Regulations – Not Applicable to Superannuated Officer – Major and minor penalties under the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1977 can be imposed only on officers in service – Upon superannuation, the only recourse available to the Bank is to initiate proceedings under Regulation 48 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, for recovery of pecuniary loss from pension – Charge-sheet issued under Discipline and Appeal Regulations cannot be treated as having been issued under the Pension Regulations merely on the ground that an erroneous regulation was quoted – Bank left at liberty to consider initiation of proceedings under Regulation 48 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, subject to fulfillment of requisite criteria [Paras 19–23].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed — Charge-sheet dated 01.03.2017 and order withholding retirement dues dated 01.03.2017 quashed and set aside — Respondent Bank directed to release all retirement dues to the Petitioner within 12 weeks — Bank at liberty to consider initiation of proceedings under Regulation 48 of the Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, subject to fulfillment of requisite criteria.

Criminal Law – UAPA – Bail – Section 43D(5) – Indian Mujahideen – Rajasthan Module – Both appellants arrested on 23.03.2014 upon disclosure by Pakistani national Zia-Ur-Rehman alias Waqas; substantial recoveries of explosives, IED material, chemicals, detonators, digital devices, forged identity cards, and jihadi material effected from each appellant in Jaipur and Jodhpur respectively – Appellants convicted by Trial Court, Jaipur in FIR No. 03/2014 under Sections 4, 5, 6 Explosive Substances Act, Sections 16–23 UAPA and Sections 121, 121A, 122, 465, 468, 471 IPC including life imprisonment under Section 121 IPC – Trial in main FIR No. 54/2011, Delhi underway with 68 witnesses already examined – Appellants serving approximately 12 years in custody – Bail previously refused by Trial Court in orders dated 10.01.2025 and 29.01.2025 – Held: Conviction in Jaipur FIR prima facie establishes guilt under Section 43D(5) UAPA; appellants pose a continuing threat to national security; recovery from appellants is materially distinct from co-accused Mohd. Maroof; parity claim not tenable; prolonged incarceration alone insufficient to override statutory embargo; appeals dismissed; Trial Court orders confirmed [Paras 1–79].

UAPA – Section 43D(5) – Twin-Prong Test – Bail is the exception and jail is the rule under Section 43D(5) UAPA, in contrast to the general principle applicable to ordinary penal offences – Court must first examine whether prima facie accusation is true on a perusal of case diary and Section 173 report; if satisfied, bail must be rejected as a rule without entering the second test – Second test i.e., the tripod test of flight risk, witness tampering and evidence interference arises only if first test is not satisfied – Degree of satisfaction required is lighter than that for discharge but heavier than mere suspicion – Evidence must be analysed as a whole and documents relied upon by prosecution taken at face value without testing admissibility at bail stage – Once charges are framed, it may be assumed that a very strong suspicion was founded upon materials before the Court – Relied upon: NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1; Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2024) 5 SCC 403 [Paras 53–61].

UAPA – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 – Balancing Liberty and National Security – Prolonged incarceration is a matter of serious constitutional concern but is not the sole determinant for bail in UAPA cases – Delay operates as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny, not as a trump card displacing statutory restraint – Court must undertake proportional and contextual balancing of: gravity and statutory character of offence; role attributed to accused within alleged conspiracy; strength of prima facie case; and extent to which continued detention is demonstrably disproportionate offending Article 21 – Where accused are part of terrorist organisations with central or organising roles, need for circumspection before constitutional intervention displacing statutory embargo is correspondingly greater – K.A. Najeeb must be understood as a constitutional safeguard against unconscionable detention and not as a mathematical formula mandating bail on passage of time alone – Relied upon: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2026 INSC 2; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 [Paras 62–67].

Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Not an Absolute Right – Parity cannot be applied blindly; nature of material recovered, role of each accused, and degree of involvement must be deeply scrutinised – Co-accused Mohd. Maroof granted bail as recovery from him was confined to digital devices only – Appellants materially distinguishable as substantial explosive material, IEDs, chemicals, detonators and bomb-making capability established against them – Parity must focus on position in crime and cannot be claimed as of right merely because another accused in the same FIR was granted bail – Relied upon: Sagar v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2584; Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2026 INSC 2 [Paras 68–70, 76].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Impugned orders dated 10.01.2025 and 29.01.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge-02, New Delhi, rejecting bail of both appellants, confirmed – Bail denied; appellants to remain in custody.