Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against conviction – Circumstantial Evidence – Key Witnesses Disbelieved – Conviction Set Aside – The prosecution’s case based on eye witness, last seen evidence, and extrajudicial confession was disbelieved by the High Court itself – The Supreme Court held that the benefit of such findings must equally apply to similarly placed appellant – Chain of circumstances was not complete to sustain conviction under Section 302 IPC – Acquittal ordered [Paras 17-22].

Last Seen Theory – Delay in Disclosure and Contradictions – Evidence Disbelieved – The testimony of PW-12 who claimed to have last seen the accused was found untrustworthy due to unexplained delay of 17 days in reporting despite knowing the deceased and being present at the postmortem – Such belated statement could not form the basis for conviction [Paras 20-21].

Delay in FIR – Inordinate Delay Without Satisfactory Explanation – The FIR was presented to the Magistrate 10 hours after recovery of the body – The prosecution’s explanation based on the Magistrate’s transfer was not supported by any record – Held: Delay casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the FIR and the prosecution version [Para 18].

Prosecution Failure – No Recovery of Contraband – No Sand Found – The entire motive of the crime rested on illegal sand smuggling, yet no sand was found in the tractor-trailer or at the site – This fundamental contradiction undermined the prosecution story [Para 11].

Conviction Based on Fingerprints – Insufficient – No Corroborative Evidence – Mere recovery of a wheel spanner with fingerprints of the appellant was held insufficient in absence of direct or corroborative evidence linking the appellant to the murder – Held: Such evidence alone cannot sustain conviction under Section 302 IPC [Para 23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Acquittal Ordered – The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and High Court – Appellant ordered to be released unless required in any other case [Paras 24-25].

Service Law – Recovery of Excess Payment – No Misrepresentation or

Fraud – Recovery Held Illegal – The appellants, retired Stenographers, were granted financial benefits based on retrospective promotions linked to Shetty Commission recommendations – After their retirement, recovery orders were issued on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of such recommendations – Held: Where no fraud or misrepresentation is alleged and employees have already retired, recovery after several years is arbitrary and impermissible – Relief granted in equity due to resultant hardship [Paras 4-11].

Natural Justice – Recovery Without Opportunity of Hearing – Violation of Principles – The impugned recovery orders were passed without notice or opportunity of hearing to the appellants – Held: Such unilateral action violates principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained – Recovery orders set aside [Paras 4, 11].

Equitable Relief – Application of Supreme Court Precedents – Relief

Against Recovery Granted – Relying on precedent including Thomas Daniel, Rafiq Masih, and Sahib Ram – Held: Recovery from Class III employees after retirement and lapse of more than five years is inequitable – Courts can invoke discretion to relieve such retired employees from repayment burdens [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Recovery Orders Set Aside – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition and quashing the recovery orders dated 08.09.2023 and 12.09.2023 issued to the appellants [Para 12].

Civil Law - Recruitment – Possession of Qualification – Last Date for Eligibility – Rule Does Not Prescribe Cut-off – Supreme Court held that Rule 6(2) of the 2016 Recruitment Rules does not prescribe a fixed cut-off date for possessing the educational qualification – Interpretation by High Court treating 29.09.2022 as the cut-off date was held to be erroneous – Eligibility must be judged based on rules or, in absence, the recruitment notification or last date of application [Paras 21-27].

Education Law – Delay in Course Completion Due to Pandemic – No Disqualification –

Candidates who were TET-qualified and had completed Part-I of the 2020–2022

D.El.Ed. course were permitted to participate per the Board's assurance before the

Single Judge – Course was delayed due to COVID-19 and administrative dysfunction – Held: Participation valid as long as candidates attained qualification before final selection [Paras 7-10, 28-30].

Interpretation – Notification of 21.10.2022 Held as Recruitment Notification – High Court incorrectly treated 29.09.2022 as the recruitment notification – Supreme Court held 21.10.2022 was the actual recruitment notification, which explicitly allowed “appearing” candidates to apply – Rule 6(2) was never intended to fix a rigid cut-off date [Paras 13-14, 20-21, 27].

Article 142 – Equitable Relief – Recruitment Process Validated – Supreme Court exercised powers under Article 142 to uphold the recruitment process commenced under the 21.10.2022 notification – Held: No illegality in permitting candidates to apply where delay was due to administrative or systemic issues beyond their control [Paras 31-32].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Recruitment Process to Proceed – Judgment of Division Bench set aside – Recruitment process under 21.10.2022 notification to continue and be completed expeditiously by the Board [Paras 33-35].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Summoning - Sanction for Prosecution – Protection under Section 197 CrPC and Section 170 Police Act – Cognizance Quashed - Allegations of excess committed by police officers during investigation and prosecution of complainant – Held: Acts had reasonable nexus with discharge of official duties – Prior sanction was mandatory – Magistrate erred in taking cognizance without sanction – Criminal proceedings against accused Nos.2 and 5 quashed [Paras 36-42].

Police Excess – Assault, Wrongful Confinement and Defamation – Still Within Protective Umbrella – Even though allegations included torture, wrongful confinement, and defamation, such acts, committed during police investigation, fell within the expression “under colour or in excess of duty” – Relying on precedents, Court held that excess alone is not enough to deny protection if reasonable nexus with official duty exists [Paras 32-39].

Delay and Motivation – Delay in Filing Complaint – Allegations of Vindictiveness - Delay in filing complaint noted but held immaterial due to the jurisdictional defect of absence of sanction – Motivation behind the complaint not examined in view of legal bar [Paras 17-19].

Final Decision – Appeals Allowed – Summoning and Cognizance Set Aside - Appeal allowed

– High Court and Sessions Court orders set aside – Summoning order quashed – Prosecution terminated against accused Nos.2 and 5 – Other accused proceedings abated due to death [Paras 41-42].

Arbitration Law – Limitation under Section 34(3) ACA – Exclusion of Date of Receipt under Section 12(1) of Limitation Act Permissible - The limitation period for filing a Section 34 application begins after excluding the date of receipt of the arbitral award under Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act – Held: The date of receipt (09.04.2022) must be excluded – The 3-month period expired on 09.07.2022, which was a court holiday – Section 4 of the Limitation Act applied – Application filed on 11.07.2022 was within limitation [Paras 11-14].

Section 34 ACA – “Three Months” Means Calendar Months, Not 90

Days - The Court clarified that the expression “three months” in Section 34(3) refers to calendar months, not 90 days – This interpretation consistent with earlier precedents including Himachal Techno Engineers – Argument of the appellant treating 3 months as 90 days was rejected [Paras 8-9].

Limitation Act – Applicability to Arbitration Proceedings – Confirmed - The Court affirmed that Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act apply to Section 34 proceedings unless specifically excluded – Reiterated recent ruling in My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality (2025 INSC 56) that limitation provisions apply on a provision-by-provision basis to arbitration [Paras 9-12].

Discretion to Stay Execution – Interim Order of High Court Not Interfered - The Court declined to interfere with the High Court's interim direction to continue stay on execution of award till disposal of Section 34 application – Appellant having already withdrawn 50% of the arbitral amount upon furnishing bank guarantee [Para 15].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed - Supreme Court upheld the High

Court’s application of Section 4 and 12(1) of the Limitation Act – Respondent’s Section 34 application found to be within limitation – Appeal dismissed with no costs [Paras 14-16].

Employment Law - Recruitment Process – Systemic Manipulation – Mass Fraud – Cancellation of Entire Selection Process Upheld - WBSSC’s 2016 recruitment process for Assistant Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff was vitiated by large-scale fraud including unauthorized engagement of private agencies, tampering of OMR sheets, rank-jumping, out-of-panel appointments, appointments after expiry of panels and destruction of OMR records – Court held that such widespread irregularities fatally undermined the integrity of the entire process – Cancellation upheld [Paras 20-42].

Natural Justice – En Masse Cancellation – Individual Hearing Not Mandatory - Principles of natural justice are flexible – When the recruitment process itself is shown to be wholly vitiated and segregating tainted from untainted candidates is impossible due to destruction of records, individual hearing is not obligatory – Service of notice and opportunity to inspect data already provided during proceedings – En masse cancellation valid [Paras 7-19, 43-44].

Segregation of Candidates – Impossible Due to Missing Records – Total Cancellation Justified -

Destruction of OMR sheets, non-maintenance of mirror copies and admitted inability of WBSSC to segregate affected candidates from genuine ones rendered the entire selection process incurably tainted – Court rejected WBSSC’s argument for partial saving of appointments [Paras 27-33].

CBI and Justice R.K. Bag Committee Reports – Findings of Systemic Fraud Accepted - Investigation and Committee reports established unauthorized data handling, manipulation of marks, unauthorized counselling, and collusion of officials – Emails, hard-disks and forensic analysis corroborated the findings – Material relied upon despite objections of tainted candidates – Cover-up attempts by WBSSC noted [Paras 21-26, 32-36].

Delay, Laches and Estoppel – Not Applicable - Objection of delay and estoppel rejected – Illegalities and fraud came to light only in 2021–2022 after CBI investigation – Public interest requires that fraud on selection process is not condoned on technical plea of delay [Para 43].

Relief – Partial Modification - Tainted candidates required to refund salaries and benefits – Untainted candidates’ appointments stand cancelled but without liability to refund payments – They may seek re-employment with their original departments without break in service but without back wages – Fresh recruitment process to be initiated [Paras 45-47].

Disabled Candidates – Equitable Relief - Differently-abled candidates permitted to continue in service until fresh recruitment process is concluded – They shall be entitled to age relaxation and other applicable concessions during fresh recruitment – However, blanket exemption from cancellation declined [Paras 48-49].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – High Court Judgment Sustained with Modifications - Entire selection process of 2016 cancelled – Fresh recruitment directed – Unaffected by pending criminal proceedings – State’s plea against investigation into supernumerary posts kept open [Paras 50-53].

Labour Law – Bonus – Applicability of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 – Appellant trust engaged in rehabilitation of leprosy-cured and specially-abled persons – Since 1985 also engaged in commercial manufacturing of automobile and industrial parts generating profits – Workers, though beneficiaries of rehabilitation, employed in manufacturing activities in factories covered under Factories Act – Tribunal, Single Judge, and Division Bench of High Court held that Bonus Act applies – Appellant not entitled to exemption under Section 32(v)(a) or (c) of the Bonus Act – Workers entitled to minimum bonus of 8.33% subject to adjustment of already paid ex-gratia [Paras 3 to 19]​.

Exemption – Claim of exemption under Section 32(v) – Appellant claimed to be like Indian Red Cross Society or institution established not for profit – Held: Appellant severed links with Red Cross in 1989 – Since engaged in commercial activities with profit generation – Factories governed by labour laws – Cannot claim exemption merely due to charitable objects – Bonus Act applicable [Paras 12 to 16]​.

Bonus vs Ex-Gratia – Appellant contended existing ex-gratia payments substitute bonus – Held: Ex-gratia is voluntary, bonus is statutory – Payment of bonus under Bonus Act mandatory irrespective of ex-gratia – Adjustment of ex-gratia permissible as directed by High Court [Paras 17 to 18]​.

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Appellant directed to pay bonus from 1996-97 onwards within one month – Workmen entitled to statutory bonus in accordance with law [Paras 19 to 22]​.

Arbitration – Power to Grant Interest – Clause 22 – No Express Bar on Pendente Lite Interest – The clause barring the contractor from claiming interest on payments, arrears or balances due does not amount to an express bar on the arbitrator’s power to award pendente lite interest – Held: Under the 1940 Act, absence of a specific prohibition on the arbitrator’s power suffices to sustain such interest – Reliance Cellulose and First Ambica Construction cases applied [Paras 14-15].

Interpretation of Clause – Strict Construction Required – Bar on interest must be expressly linked to disputes or arbitrator’s jurisdiction – Clause 22 only restricts contractor’s entitlement to claim interest directly under the contract, but does not oust the arbitrator’s power – Held: Arbitrator was competent to award pendente lite interest [Paras 9-15].

Arbitration – Modification of Interest Rate – Discretion Exercised – Considering the passage of time, partial payments already made, and post-award interest paid, Supreme Court exercised its jurisdiction under the 1940 Act to reduce the pendente lite interest from 15% (as awarded by the arbitrator) to 9% – Directed payment within 60 days [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court and District Judge’s orders set aside – Arbitral award restored with modification in interest rate – Pendente lite interest payable @ 9% from 18.12.1991 till 07.03.1995 [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Cheating – FIR under Section 420 IPC – Dispute regarding unpaid dues for coal supplied – Appellant, a businessman, entered into commercial transactions with respondent for supply of coal – Payments defaulted due to business losses – Subsequent notarized agreement for repayment not honoured – High Court refused to quash FIR – Held: Mere failure to repay debt or breach of contract does not constitute cheating – No evidence of dishonest intention at inception or inducement to part with property – Dispute purely civil – FIR quashed [Paras 2 to 23]​.

Commercial Disputes – Scope of Criminal Offence – Held: For offence of cheating under Section 415 IPC, it must be shown that inducement was made with dishonest intention at inception – Representation of being a ‘creditworthy businessman’ alone insufficient – Material shows appellant had genuine commercial transactions and suffered business setbacks – No false inducement established – Criminal law cannot be used for debt recovery [Paras 10 to 20]​.

Principles – High Court’s power to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC – Held: If FIR discloses only civil wrong without ingredients of criminal offence, criminal proceedings should be quashed – Mere breach of promise without fraudulent intention is not cheating – Criminal law must not be misused to settle civil disputes [Paras 9 to 22]​.

Decision – Appeal allowed – FIR No. 80/2022 under Section 420 IPC quashed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 23 to 24]​.