Service Law - Retrospective Dismissal - Legality - The Bank's order of dismissal dated 22.11.2001 with retrospective effect from 23.04.1985 was held to be impermissible. It was ruled that a dismissal order cannot be made retrospective to affect past service. The dismissal order could only operate prospectively from the date it was passed, in this case, from 22.11.2001. [Paras 1-30]

Superannuation - Service Continuance - The officer, Ram Niwas Bansal, was found to have completed thirty years of service on 25.02.1992 as per the State Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. Since no extension was granted, he was deemed to have superannuated on that date. The service regulations require a positive act for any extension of service, which was not present in this case. [Paras 31-39]

Back Wages - Entitlement - While Ram Niwas Bansal's dismissal order was invalidated, he was found to have continued in service until his retirement on 25.02.1992. The Court held that back wages should be paid for the period between 23.04.1985 and 25.02.1992. However, full back wages were not granted, taking into account various factors including the conduct of the employee and the period of non-working. An equitable solution was directed, with an additional sum to be paid by the Bank. [Paras 40-42]

Decision - The appeal and transfer case were disposed of with directions to modify the High Court's order. The Bank was instructed to deposit a further sum of INR 5 lakhs with the Registrar General of the High Court within two months, in addition to any previously deposited amount, for the benefit of the legal heirs of Ram Niwas Bansal. [Para 42]

Criminal Law - Reversal of Acquittal - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Criminal Appeal challenging the High Court's order reversing the acquittal of the appellant for charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - The appellant allegedly demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 1,000 to alter a demarcation report. - The High Court reversed the acquittal, finding sufficient evidence to convict. - Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, citing lack of explanation from the appellant for incriminating circumstances and valid application of presumption under Section 20 of the Act - Appeal dismissed, acquittal reversed, and sentence of one year RI and fine imposed. [Paras 1-12]

Presumption of Guilt in Corruption Cases - Analysis - Held - Appellant failed to explain his presence in the complainant’s house, the recovery of marked currency notes, and the chemical reaction confirming handling of the bribe money - Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act justifiably applied - Absence of rebuttal evidence from the appellant supported adverse inference. [Para 6-10]

Scope of Appellate Review - Reversal of Acquittal - Principles - Held - Appellate court justified in reversing acquittal if the trial court's decision is perverse or contrary to evidence - Presumption of innocence and respect for trial court’s judgment must be balanced against compelling circumstances - Supreme Court found no perversity in High Court’s decision warranting interference. [Para 10-11]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Acquittal Reversed - The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the High Court's decision to convict the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant is ordered to surrender to serve the remaining sentence. [Para 12]

Arbitration - Award of Interest - Applicability of Contractual Clauses - Civil Appeal against High Court's dismissal of appeals by Union of India challenging the award of interest by an arbitrator - Arbitration award included interest for the period prior to and post-deposit of the principal amount in court - Union of India argued prohibition of interest under contract clauses and sought quashing of interest awarded - Supreme Court examined contract provisions barring interest on amounts withheld under lien - Held that arbitrator erred in awarding interest for the period covered by contractual prohibition, and High Court also erred in upholding such award - Directed that no interest shall be payable from the date of recovery till award and until deposit in court - Appeals allowed, modifying the arbitral award accordingly. [Paras 14-22]

Arbitration Law - Prohibition on Interest - Interpretation of Contract Clauses - Held - Arbitrator failed to account for clauses 2401 and 2403 of the contract prohibiting interest on amounts withheld - High Court erred in not recognizing contractual stipulations against interest - Award of interest up to the deposit date in court unsustainable under contractual terms. [Para 18-20]

Decision - Modification of Arbitral Award - Supreme Court directs that no interest be payable from the date of recovery until the award and until the deposit in court - Arbitrator's award modified, and the appeals by Union of India allowed to that extent. [Para 22]

Service Law – Recruitment Process – Change of Selection Criteria – The Supreme Court examined the legality of applying the Uttaranchal Subordinate Service (Emergency Direct Recruitment (First Amendment)) Rules, 2003 to a selection process initiated under the Uttaranchal Subordinate Engineering Service (Emergency Direct Recruitment) Rules, 2001. The Court held that the 2003 Rules could not retroactively alter the selection criteria established by the 2001 Rules. Consequently, the 2003 Rules could not be applied to the selection process which was already in progress. [Paras 1-25]

Preference to Apprentices – Interpretation and Scope – The Court clarified that the provision for granting 10 bonus marks to apprentices, introduced by the 2003 Rules, could not be retrospectively applied to candidates who participated in the selection process under the 2001 Rules. The Court rejected the High Court's interpretation that the 2003 Rules could amend the 2001 Rules, which had already ceased to exist. [Paras 20-23]

Executive Orders vs. Statutory Rules – The Court reaffirmed the principle that executive instructions cannot supplant or amend statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The 2004 clarification by the State Government, which sought to restrict the application of bonus marks to cases of tie, was held to be an executive instruction that could not override the statutory rules. [Paras 26-28]

Decision – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the 2001 Rules governed the selection process and no additional marks could be awarded to apprentice candidates as per the 2003 Rules. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's directions were quashed. [Paras 29]

Criminal Procedure - Cancellation of Bail - Proviso to Section 439(1) CrPC Compliance - Criminal Appeal challenging High Court order cancelling bail granted to appellant in economic offence involving public money defalcation - Sessions Judge granted bail without giving the mandatory notice to the public prosecutor or providing adequate time to respond - High Court found this to be a breach of mandatory provisions, justified the cancellation of bail citing a perverse and unjustified order - High Court's order upheld by the Supreme Court. [Paras 23-27]

Bail Cancellation - Economic Offences - Influence and Pressure on Witnesses - Seriousness and Nature of Offence - Court notes that economic offences have a severe impact on society and should be dealt with stringently - Appellant accused of leading protests against police and pressurizing witnesses, indicating misuse of bail - High Court's decision to cancel bail further justified on grounds of ensuring a fair trial and preventing tampering with evidence. [Paras 22, 27]

Jurisdiction - High Court's Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC - Appeal challenges locus standi of respondents in filing for bail cancellation - High Court can invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure ends of justice - Appeal to quash bail on grounds of procedural breaches and perverse orders permissible even when moved by private parties or complainants. [Para 30]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Transfer of Trial - Supreme Court upholds High Court's decision to cancel bail - Orders the trial to be transferred outside Jalgaon district to ensure a free and fair trial environment, acknowledging the intimidation of witnesses and potential for influence within Jalgaon - Trial transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule. [Paras 31-33]

Central Excise - MODVAT Credit - Retrospective Withdrawal - Finance Act, 2000 - Section 112 - Rule 57(I) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 – Civil Appeals against High Court judgment allowing MODVAT credit on HSD Oil used as input - Assessees wrongfully availed MODVAT credit despite 1995 Notification withdrawing it - Revenue issued show cause notices and demanded interest - High Court set aside Revenue's orders - Supreme Court held that Section 112 of Finance Act, 2000, enacted to validate denial of MODVAT credit retrospectively - Interest at 24% p.a. justified on wrongful credit post 30 days of President's assent to 2000 Act - No necessity for adjudication before demanding interest - High Court erred in quashing Revenue's orders - Appeals allowed - High Court judgment set aside. [Paras 1-30]

Retrospective Legislation - Interpretation - MODVAT Credit on HSD Oil - Held - Section 112 of Finance Act, 2000, intended to deny credit retrospectively, ensuring return of wrongfully availed credit with interest - Legislative intent to address non-admissibility from 1995 through 2000 Act - Revenue entitled to recover wrongfully availed credit with interest without prior adjudication. [Paras 24-29]

Interest on Wrongful Credit - Analysis - Held - Imposition of interest at 24% p.a. from 30 days post enactment justified - No need for show cause notice before interest demand - Compliance required within 30 days of President’s assent to avoid interest - Non-payment justifies interest imposition. [Para 29]

Decision - Appeals allowed - Impugned High Court judgment set aside - Respondents liable to repay MODVAT credit with interest at 24% p.a. - Revenue’s action upheld. [Paras 30]

Development Control Regulations - Compliance and Restriction on Building Heights - Appeals against High Court order allowing writ petition and quashing of stop work notice - Building project for public parking lot restricted in height by Additional Municipal Commissioner - High Court's setting aside of such restrictions upheld by Supreme Court - Municipal regulations and state amendments considered - Directions issued for compliance with mandatory open space and fire safety provisions - Recommendations for urban planning and traffic impact assessments.

Development Control Regulations - Interpretation and Compliance - Recreational Spaces -

Regulations 23 and 38(34) - Held - Mandatory recreational spaces under Regulation 23 cannot be reduced based on Regulation 38(34) - Recreational spaces provided on podiums are in addition to, not a substitute for, ground-level spaces. The Court emphasizes the necessity of recreational spaces at ground level to ensure the right to a clean and healthy environment as per Article 21 of the Constitution. [Paras 15-28]

Fire Safety - Access and Maneuverability for Fire Engines - Reconstruction Schemes -

Regulation 43 - Held - Second proviso to DCR 43(1)(A) found discriminatory and hazardous - Minimum 6-meter access for fire engines required even for plots up to 600 sq. meters under DCR 33(7) unless additional access conditions are met. This ensures adequate fire protection for high-rise buildings, aligning with constitutional safety standards. [Paras 29-39]

Urban Development and Planning - Impact on Infrastructure - Recommendations -

Issues regarding height restrictions and FSI (Floor Space Index) - Court recommends a locality-wise approach for granting exemptions from height restrictions under DCR 31 - Assessments to consider the impact on traffic and infrastructure - Suggests involvement of existing occupants in funding reconstruction projects to control population density and pressure on urban infrastructure. [Paras 41-54]

Reconstitution of Technical Committee for High-Rise Buildings - Oversight and Recommendations -

Court directs reconstitution of the Technical Committee for High-Rise Buildings with expanded terms of reference, including oversight on grievances regarding development schemes under DCR 33(7), 33(8), 33(9), and 33(10), and recommendations for the new Development Plan - Committee to ensure compliance with fire safety, structural integrity, and environmental considerations. [Paras 55-58]

Decision - Compliance and Oversight Measures Ordered -

Supreme Court upholds High Court's decision to quash stop work notice and restrictions on building height. Orders issued for strict compliance with mandatory recreational spaces and fire safety provisions, and reconstitution of the Technical Committee for High-Rise Buildings with expanded oversight responsibilities. Recommendations made for urban planning considerations in future development plans. [Paras 60]

Criminal Law - Requirement of Central Government Approval - Section 6A of DSPE Act - Constitutional Courts' Authority - Supreme Court examined whether prior approval from the Central Government under Section 6A is mandatory for investigations involving high-ranking officials when such investigations are monitored by the Court. Held that Section 6A's requirement does not apply to court-monitored investigations, ensuring that such investigations proceed uninfluenced and without undue delay, thus preserving the integrity of the judicial process and the investigation. [Paras 47-65]

Judicial Review - Constitutional Courts' Powers - Article 32 of the Constitution - Supreme Court affirmed its plenary power under Article 32, holding that statutory restrictions like Section 6A of the DSPE Act do not bind the Court. The Court emphasized its role in ensuring a fair, impartial, and expeditious investigation, particularly in cases involving significant public interest and potential high-level corruption. [Paras 93-107]

Protection of Honest Public Servants - Section 6A of DSPE Act - Supreme Court acknowledged the purpose of Section 6A to shield senior officials from frivolous investigations but noted that constitutional courts could provide adequate protection against such abuse when monitoring investigations. Held that judicial oversight itself serves as a robust mechanism to prevent misuse of investigative powers, rendering the need for prior approval unnecessary in court-monitored scenarios. [Paras 54-56, 94-96]

Decision- The Supreme Court held that the approval of the Central Government under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is not required in cases where the inquiry or investigation into the crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is being monitored by the Court. The constitutional courts retain their authority to oversee such investigations to ensure their fairness, impartiality, and adherence to legal standards. Consequently, the court set aside any contrary decisions by lower courts, ensuring the unimpeded progress of the ongoing investigations. [Paras 65, 107]

Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Conviction under Section 304B IPC – Appellant convicted of causing dowry death by harassment and demand for additional dowry – Deceased wife Neelima committed suicide by consuming pesticide – Appeal against conviction – Evidence demonstrated consistent harassment by appellant for dowry of Rs. 2,00,000 – Trial court and High Court found sufficient proof of cruelty "soon before" death – Conviction and seven years Rigorous Imprisonment upheld by Supreme Court. [Paras 1-14]

Evidence - Dowry Harassment - Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act – Held – Sufficient evidence from family members of deceased about dowry demands and harassment – No defence evidence to rebut presumption of dowry death – Court emphasizes proximity test for "soon before" death requirement – Evidence of consistent harassment by appellant close to the time of death considered sufficient for conviction under Section 304B IPC. [Paras 5-13]

Decision – Conviction under Section 304B IPC upheld – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court finds no merit in appellant’s argument for acquittal based on acquittal of co-accused – Sufficient specific evidence of appellant’s individual involvement in dowry harassment and resultant suicide of deceased. [Paras 14]