Disciplinary Proceedings – Approval of Charge Memo – Appellants challenged CAT and High Court decisions quashing charge sheets issued to respondents, arguing that approval for initiation of proceedings implied approval of charge memo – Supreme Court upheld CAT and High Court rulings, stating that explicit approval of charge memo by disciplinary authority (Finance Minister) is required under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules [Paras 1-50].

Delegation and Authority – Interpretation of Rules – Article 311 of the Constitution and Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules mandate disciplinary proceedings and charge memo approval by the appointing authority or its delegate – Supreme Court emphasized that charge memo must be explicitly approved by the Finance Minister to ensure compliance with procedural safeguards and natural justice [Paras 39-43].

Office Order No. 205/2005 – Administrative Procedure – Office order mandates Finance Minister’s approval for charge memo issuance – Supreme Court rejected argument that initiation approval suffices, clarifying procedural distinctness and necessity of explicit charge memo approval to prevent administrative overreach and uphold statutory compliance [Paras 41-43].

Delegatus Non-Potest Delegare – Principle Application – Court reaffirmed that delegated authority (Finance Minister) cannot re-delegate approval powers for charge memo to subordinate authorities unless explicitly provided by statute – Approval for initiation does not equate to approval of charge memo [Paras 43-44].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Charge sheets quashed due to lack of explicit approval by Finance Minister – Liberty granted to appellants to initiate appropriate action per law [Para 50].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope and Limitations – Appellate court interference with acquittal order limited to compelling circumstances or perverse judgments – High Court’s acquittal based on perceived contradictions and delays found erroneous by Supreme Court [Paras 6, 34].

Contradictions in Medical and Ocular Evidence – Legal Proposition – Ocular evidence generally holds higher evidentiary value over medical evidence – Discrepancies between them must be significant to discredit prosecution – High Court erred in dismissing credible eyewitness accounts [Paras 7-8].

Witness Testimony – Related/Interested Witnesses – Evidence from related witnesses scrutinized carefully but not dismissed solely on that basis – High Court wrongly rejected testimony from close relatives of the deceased [Paras 11-14].

Delay in FIR Lodging – Not Sole Ground for Rejection – Courts must consider explanations for delay in FIR – High Court's view on FIR delay incorrect as circumstances provided reasonable justification [Paras 15-16, 32].

Non-Cross Examination – Legal Consequence – Failure to cross-examine a witness on a particular issue means court can rely on that unchallenged testimony – Defence did not cross-examine key aspects, making High Court’s doubt unwarranted [Paras 17-18].

High Court’s Judgment – Found to be Perversely Based on No Evidence – Supreme Court restored trial court’s conviction, rejecting High Court’s reasoning as flawed and unsupported by evidence [Paras 30-34].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside, trial court’s conviction and sentences restored – Respondents directed to surrender and serve remaining sentences [Para 34].

Dowry Death – Conviction – Appellant, aged close to 100, challenged conviction under Sections 498A and 304B IPC – Sessions Court and High Court found appellant guilty – High Court reduced sentence under Section 304B IPC from ten to seven years [Paras 1-4].

Presumption and Burden of Proof – Dowry death presumption under Section 304B IPC and Section 113B Evidence Act mandatory – Prosecution must establish all ingredients to shift burden to accused – Death must occur within seven years of marriage for presumption to apply [Paras 5-10].

Evidence and Conviction – Prosecution failed to prove death occurred within seven years of marriage – Inconsistent evidence regarding marriage date – Appellant’s conviction under Section 304B IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 498A IPC upheld [Paras 10-11].

Sentence Modification – Considering appellant’s advanced age, substantive sentence under Section 498A IPC limited to period already undergone [Para 11].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Conviction under Section 304B IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 498A IPC confirmed with sentence modified to time served [Paras 11-12].

Review Petition – Grounds for Review – Union of India filed a review petition against the Supreme Court’s judgment mandating judicial members in Information Commissions – Contended that such a mandate was beyond the legislative intent and encroached upon legislative functions [Paras 1-8].

RTI Act Interpretation – Judicial Mandate Overreach – Original judgment interpreted Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of RTI Act to require judicial members in Information Commissions – Supreme Court on review found this interpretation to be beyond the scope of the Act and corrected the error [Paras 18-25].

Judicial vs. Administrative Functions – Information Commissions' Role – Supreme Court clarified that Information Commissions perform administrative functions, not judicial functions – No need for judicial members as originally mandated by the court [Paras 19-24].

Article 14 Challenge – Interpretation and Reading Down Provisions – Court discussed and dismissed the challenge under Article 14, maintaining that Sections 12(5) and 15(5) do not offend the doctrine of equality and need not be read down to include judicial qualifications [Paras 27-28].

Decision – Review Petition Allowed – Original judgment's directions for judicial members in Information Commissions set aside – Court clarified proper interpretation of Sections 12(5) and 15(5) – Directions issued to ensure qualified and eminent persons are appointed as Information Commissioners [Paras 31-32].

Court Monitoring of Investigation – Justification – Supreme Court justified monitoring 2G Spectrum case investigation due to involvement of high-profile individuals and substantial public interest – Emphasized need for fair, impartial, and comprehensive investigation [Paras 1-12].

Special Public Prosecutor Appointment – Court appointed Special Public Prosecutor to ensure effective prosecution – Barred any other court from staying or impeding the trial’s progress to maintain continuity and integrity [Paras 12-13].

Interference with Trial – Misinterpretation – Petitioners claimed Supreme Court's orders interfered with trial proceedings – Court clarified orders aimed at ensuring timely trial without impeding judicial process – Upheld right to fair trial and access to appropriate legal remedies [Paras 21-22, 28].

Public Interest and Judicial Accountability – Emphasized larger public interest and judicial accountability in ensuring swift and fair resolution of significant corruption cases – Highlighted statutory mandate for speedy trials in corruption cases [Paras 23-25, 28].

Constitutional Powers – Scope and Limits – Reiterated Supreme Court’s constitutional authority to pass necessary orders under Articles 136 and 142 to ensure justice – Asserted that such orders do not negate the jurisdiction of lower courts under Articles 226 and 227 [Paras 22-23, 26].

Guidelines for Monitoring Investigation – Rejected Need – Found no necessity for additional guidelines for court-monitored investigations – Existing statutory and constitutional provisions deemed sufficient for ensuring effective judicial oversight [Para 30].

Decision – Petitions dismissed – Supreme Court’s orders upheld – Emphasized need for uninterrupted trial and swift justice in high-profile corruption cases [Paras 31].

Motor Accident – Contributory Negligence – Appellants challenged the finding of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the corresponding reduction in compensation – Supreme Court found the Tribunal and High Court erred in concluding contributory negligence without rebuttal evidence from the respondents – Held that accident was due to sole negligence of the truck driver [Paras 10-12].

Assessment of Compensation – Multiplicand and Multiplier – Tribunal took deceased’s monthly income as Rs. 3000 without proper justification – Supreme Court considered the job of a driver as a skilled job and took monthly income as Rs. 6000 – Added 30% for future prospects, resulting in Rs. 7800 per month – Deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses, arriving at Rs. 5200 per month – Applied multiplier of 16 based on deceased’s age, resulting in Rs. 998400 for loss of dependency [Paras 13].

Conventional Heads – Funeral and Miscellaneous Expenses – Tribunal inadequately awarded Rs. 5000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 3000 for loss of love and affection – Supreme Court awarded Rs. 50000 under conventional heads, making total compensation Rs. 1048400 with 9% interest per annum from the date of application till payment [Paras 13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court and Tribunal judgments set aside – Enhanced compensation awarded with 9% interest – Compensation to be apportioned equally between appellants – Directed Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the amount in a nationalized bank for three years, allowing withdrawals on Tribunal’s order for personal expenses [Paras 14].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Parameters of Review – Supreme Court emphasized that High Court's power to reverse acquittal is limited – Appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court’s conclusions are unreasonable or perverse – Two reasonable views on evidence should favor acquittal [Paras 5, 11].

Evaluation of Evidence – Witness Credibility – High Court failed to consider inherent doubts about witnesses PW-11 and PW-12 – Trial court noted discrepancies in their testimonies and the lack of credible evidence linking the appellant to the crime – High Court overlooked key inconsistencies [Paras 8-9, 12-13].

Forensic Evidence – Weapon and Bullet Linkage – Trial court doubted recovery of firearms and their linkage to bullets from the deceased’s body – High Court did not adequately address these doubts [Para 9].

Conclusion – Supreme Court held High Court erred in reversing acquittal without addressing trial court’s valid concerns – Restored trial court’s acquittal – Directed immediate release of appellant unless held for other charges [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Acquittal restored – Appellant to be released unless held in another case [Para 13].

Contempt of Court – Non-Compliance with Orders – Petitioner filed contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with Supreme Court's directions to determine and pay arrears of family pension – Supreme Court had previously directed the Accountant General, Uttar Pradesh, to address grievances and determine the amount payable [Paras 1, 4-5].

Disputed Facts – Jurisdiction Limits – Petitioner's change in stand regarding last pay drawn by her deceased husband led to factual disputes – Contempt jurisdiction requires clear, undisputed facts for adjudication of wilful disobedience – Supreme Court found conflicting claims regarding the last pay drawn, preventing summary adjudication [Paras 10-12].

Compliance with Directions – Affidavit by Accountant General – Respondents claimed compliance with Supreme Court's order, stating pension arrears and revised pension were being paid – Accountant General's affidavit indicated alignment with Basic Shiksha Adhikari's calculations, found no discrepancies [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Contempt petitions dismissed – No wilful disobedience found – Supreme Court closed Contempt Petition Nos. 6/2009 and 7/2009 as not requiring further orders [Paras 12].

Notice Under Section 80(1) CPC – Requirement – Respondent filed suit against State without complying with mandatory notice requirement under Section 80(1) CPC – Filed application under Section 80(2) CPC seeking exemption from notice requirement due to urgency – Trial Court and High Court presumed application under Section 80(2) granted without explicit order, rejected appellants’ applications for plaint rejection [Paras 3-10].

Legal Principle – Application of Section 80(2) CPC – Supreme Court held that mere filing of application under Section 80(2) CPC does not imply automatic grant – Court must explicitly decide application after hearing parties to determine urgency and need for immediate relief – Without such decision, irregularity of non-compliance with Section 80(1) CPC continues [Paras 24-26].

Rejection of Applications – Premature – Supreme Court found Trial Court erred in rejecting applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without first deciding on Section 80(2) application – High Court wrongly upheld Trial Court’s decision [Paras 25-27].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court and Trial Court orders set aside – Directed Trial Court to first decide application under Section 80(2) CPC, then address applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC based on outcome [Paras 28-29].