Criminal Law – Assault on Woman – Appellant convicted for forcibly kissing a young girl – Sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and fine – Concurrent findings by lower courts upheld – Supreme Court emphasizes protection of women's modesty – Request for leniency and applicability of Probation of Offenders Act rejected due to gravity of offence [Paras 1-12].

Juvenile Justice – Applicability Post Conviction – Appellant claimed juvenility at the time of the offence – Supreme Court acknowledges right to raise juvenility claim at any stage – However, considering short sentence already imposed, further proceedings under Juvenile Justice Act deemed unnecessary [Paras 13-15].

Proportionality of Sentence – Leniency and Delay – Request for reduced sentence due to passage of time and personal circumstances – Supreme Court highlights importance of proportionality in sentencing, ensuring punishment reflects severity of offence – Appeal for leniency rejected to uphold justice and societal standards [Paras 16-21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of six months' simple imprisonment and fine affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the sentence [Paras 22].

Arbitration Clause – Interpretation – Clause 30 of B-1 Agreement examined to determine if it constitutes an arbitration clause – Clause empowers Superintending Engineer to resolve disputes but does not explicitly state arbitration – Supreme Court held Clause 30 is not an arbitration clause as it involves administrative decision-making not adjudication of disputes – Distinguished from arbitration agreements where independent adjudication by arbitrator is intended [Paras 1-31].

Supervision vs. Arbitration – Superintending Engineer's role – Clause 30 empowers Superintending Engineer with supervisory control and decision-making in project execution – Such powers deemed administrative rather than judicial – Arbitrator must be impartial and not involved in project execution to ensure fair adjudication of disputes [Paras 17-21, 26].

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on prior judgments – Analysis of similar clauses in other cases, such as State of U.P. v. Tipper Chand and State of Orissa v. Damodar Das – Prior judgments reaffirmed that supervisory clauses do not constitute arbitration agreements – Distinction from cases like Mallikarjun v. Gulbarga University where independent third party was involved [Paras 19-25, 28-30].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's interpretation affirmed – Clause 30 of B-1 Agreement is not an arbitration clause – Orders appointing Arbitrator set aside [Paras 31-33].

Dowry Death – Elements of Offence – Appellants convicted under Section 304B IPC for causing death by burns of the deceased due to dowry harassment – Supreme Court emphasized the need to prove cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry soon before death – Prosecution failed to establish this link, leading to acquittal [Paras 1-11, 14-15].

Dying Declaration – Evidentiary Value – Dying declaration (Ext. 4) recorded by ASI not supported by medical certification of mental and medical fitness – ASI not examined in court, affecting credibility – Court noted such certification while not mandatory is crucial in burn cases for establishing reliability [Paras 13-15].

Interested Witnesses – Reliability – Statements by deceased’s mother and brother considered interested witnesses – Court held their evidence must be scrutinized with caution – Their testimony alone found insufficient without corroborative evidence of dowry harassment [Paras 6, 12-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 304B IPC set aside – Prosecution failed to prove harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before death – Accused ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 16].

Persons with Disabilities – Promotion and Reservation – Respondent sought promotion under the physically handicapped quota – BSNL rejected as no relaxation/reservation for physically handicapped persons in promotion as in SC/ST – Chief Commissioner ordered inclusion of TOA cadre in identified posts and consideration for promotion – Supreme Court held the Chief Commissioner exceeded powers under Section 59 of Disabilities Act – Promotion in physically handicapped quota limited to identified posts only [Paras 2-11].

Identification of Posts – Government Policy – High Power Committee identified specific posts for promotion under physically handicapped quota – TOA cadre not included – Supreme Court emphasized the government’s policy decision to limit identified posts – Chief Commissioner cannot extend policy beyond identified posts [Paras 9-11].

Scope of Chief Commissioner’s Powers – Examination of Rights – Section 59 of the Disabilities Act allows Chief Commissioner to examine deprivation of rights under existing laws – Chief Commissioner cannot create or confer new rights – Supreme Court clarified powers limited to ensuring implementation of existing laws and regulations [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Chief Commissioner’s order and High Court’s affirmation set aside – No powers to direct inclusion of TOA cadre in identified categories or grant promotion under reserved vacancies [Paras 13].

Judicial Review – Proportionality of Punishment – Respondent removed from service for entering Principal’s office in a drunken state during working hours – Supreme Court held that penalty of removal was not disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct – High Court’s reduction of penalty set aside as it misapplied the principle of proportionality [Paras 3-11].

Misconduct and Discipline – Drunken Behavior – Respondent admitted to entering Principal’s office under the influence of alcohol – Supreme Court emphasized seriousness of misconduct especially in educational institution – Held penalty of removal justified given the gravity of misconduct [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Interference – Limited Scope – Emphasized limited role of courts in interfering with departmental penalties – Courts should not substitute their own judgment for that of disciplinary authorities unless penalty is shockingly disproportionate – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by prescribing specific penalty [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Tribunal’s decision upholding removal from service restored – No costs [Paras 12-14].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Jurisdiction of Authorities – Respondent penalized by UPSEB for misconduct committed while in service – Supreme Court held that as per Regulation 6(4), the Chairman was the competent authority to impose punishment, not the Board – Punishment order set aside as it deprived respondent of right to appeal to the Board, violating principles of natural justice [Paras 9-11, 21].

Right of Appeal – Deprivation and Illegality – UPSEB’s order of punishment by Board deprived respondent of statutory right of appeal to the Board – Supreme Court emphasized that an employee's right to appeal must not be usurped by a higher authority improperly assuming disciplinary jurisdiction [Paras 12-19].

Continuance of Proceedings Post-Retirement – Permissibility – Disciplinary proceedings initiated during service can continue post-retirement to determine pension reduction – Supreme Court affirmed principles allowing such proceedings provided they adhere to statutory rules and ensure fair process [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Order of punishment by UPSEB annulled due to violation of procedural fairness and right to appeal [Paras 22].

Electricity Regulatory Commission – Jurisdiction – HPERC issued directions and imposed penalties on HPSEB for non-compliance with tariff order directions – HPSEB contested jurisdiction of HPERC – High Court ruled in favor of HPSEB, holding that HPERC became functus officio after fixing tariff – Supreme Court analyzed scope of Section 22(1)(d) of the 1998 Act, concluding that HPERC had authority to issue directions to promote efficiency and economy in electricity industry [Paras 1-34].

Repeal and Saving Provisions – Vested Rights – Appeals were pending before High Court when 2003 Act came into force – Supreme Court held that right to appeal to High Court was a vested right preserved by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and not affected by the 2003 Act – High Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeals [Paras 12-31].

Penalty and Compliance – HPERC imposed Rs. 5000 penalty on HPSEB for non-compliance – Supreme Court found substantial compliance by HPSEB – Penalty deemed unwarranted given factual compliance – HPERC directed to proceed under 2003 Act if further action required, without relying on earlier orders [Paras 34-35].

Decision: Appeals disposed of – High Court’s jurisdiction affirmed – HPERC’s authority to issue directions upheld – Penalty imposed on HPSEB set aside – Directions for future compliance under 2003 Act provided [Paras 35].

Criminal Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Appellants filed a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC against the respondent, a public servant, alleging various offences – Special Judge referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC without sanction order – High Court quashed the order, holding that sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is necessary even at pre-cognizance stage – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision, emphasizing necessity of sanction before referring for investigation under Section 156(3) [Paras 1-15].

Judicial Procedure – Application of Mind – Magistrate’s discretion under Section 156(3) CrPC requires application of mind – Mere mechanical referral for investigation not permissible – Supreme Court observed that the order must reflect reasons for ordering investigation [Para 8].

Cognizance and Sanction – Definition and Stages – Examined whether referring a complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC constitutes taking cognizance – Held that such referral is at pre-cognizance stage – Sanction is required before taking cognizance, and thus necessary even for pre-cognizance investigation of a public servant [Paras 9-10].

Mandatory Sanction – Procedural vs. Substantive Requirement – Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act mandates prior sanction for prosecuting public servants – Supreme Court affirmed that sanction is not merely procedural but a substantive requirement to protect public servants from vexatious litigation [Paras 11-14].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s quashing of investigation referral upheld – Requirement of prior sanction for prosecuting public servants reaffirmed [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Respondent accused of obtaining loans on forged documents in conspiracy with bank officials – High Court quashed proceedings under Section 482 CrPC citing settlement with bank – Supreme Court held that compromise between offender and victim not applicable for non-compoundable offences involving moral turpitude – Offences under Sections 420, 471 IPC impact public and societal interests, beyond private disputes [Paras 1-16].

Inherent Power of High Court – Distinction from Compounding – Supreme Court reiterated that High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC is distinct from compounding under Section 320 CrPC – High Court must consider nature and gravity of offence, impact on society, and not quash proceedings for serious offences merely on settlement between parties [Para 13].

Public Interest – Banking Fraud – Offences involving banking fraud and forgery affect public trust and financial stability – Such offences fall under category involving moral turpitude, not subject to quashing on settlement – Emphasized importance of proceeding with trial to maintain public confidence in justice system [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order quashing proceedings set aside – Trial court directed to proceed with trial expeditiously in accordance with law [Para 16].