Civil Procedure – Issuance of Charge Sheet – Respondent, a retired employee of PSEB, challenged a charge sheet issued four years post-retirement – High Court quashed the charge sheet, citing Rule 2.2(B) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules which prohibits departmental proceedings for events occurring more than four years prior to their institution – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision, affirming that the charge sheet was issued beyond the permissible time frame [Paras 1-4].

Costs – Frivolous Appeals by Government Bodies – Supreme Court emphasized the irresponsible tendency of government bodies to file meritless appeals, overburdening the judiciary – High Court’s imposition of costs on the officer who authorized the frivolous appeal upheld – Emphasized the need for responsible litigation by government agencies to avoid unnecessary burden on courts [Paras 5-18].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed with further costs of Rs. 10,000/-, to be recovered from the officer who authorized the filing of the appeal.

Motor Vehicles – Compensation for Disability – Appellants sought compensation for their 17-year-old son who suffered 80% disability due to a motor vehicle accident – Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,875,800/- with interest; High Court reduced compensation to Rs. 1,245,800/- – Supreme Court restored the Tribunal's award, recognizing the lifelong care required and financial burden on the parents [Paras 1-14].

Medical Expenses and Dependency – Appellants substantiated expenses for medical treatment, nursing, and physiotherapy totaling Rs. 349,128/- – Supreme Court acknowledged the lifelong dependency of the injured on his parents and the necessity of compensation to cover ongoing care and support [Paras 12-13].

Application of Sarla Verma Case – High Court applied the principles from Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reducing compensation – Supreme Court found the Tribunal’s higher award more just and appropriate given the severity of the injury and lifelong implications [Paras 9-11].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Tribunal's award of Rs. 1,875,800/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of presentation of the claim petition until realization restored – No order as to costs.

Education Law – Increase of Admission Capacity – Petitioner, a charitable trust, sought to increase BDS course capacity from 50 to 100 seats – Application rejected by the Central Government as the existing course was not recognized at the time of application – High Court dismissed Writ Petition challenging the rejection – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing adherence to statutory timeframes and criteria [Paras 1-16].

Recognition and Eligibility Criteria – Petitioner’s application incomplete as existing course recognition was pending – Central Government required to return incomplete applications as per Regulation 20(2) – Supreme Court found no fault with DCI or Central Government’s actions [Paras 5-12].

Discretionary Power – Request for modification of time schedule under Note (2) of the Regulations – Supreme Court held that such discretion lies with the Central Government and cannot be directed by mandamus – Importance of adhering to statutory timeframes for professional course admissions reiterated [Paras 13-15].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – No modification to statutory time schedule granted.

Civil Procedure – Additional Evidence at Appellate Stage – Government of Karnataka sought to adduce additional evidence (a map) indicating disputed land as a public road at the appellate stage – Application rejected by the High Court – Supreme Court upheld rejection, emphasizing the conditions under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC which were not met by the appellants [Paras 3-8].

Government Authority and Public Land – Supreme Court noted the appellants, being a public authority, should have had knowledge of the evidence (road map) at the trial stage – Reiterated that additional evidence at appellate stage requires due diligence and knowledge criteria to be met, which were not fulfilled by the appellants [Paras 7-8].

Discretion of Acquisition – Court observed that the Government of Karnataka is not barred from acquiring the disputed land through appropriate legal means if deemed necessary for public road construction – Dismissed appeal without interfering with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts [Paras 9-12].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – High Court’s decision upheld – Appellants free to pursue legal avenues for land acquisition if required for public use.

Industrial Disputes – Validity of References – Appellant sold its cement division to Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd., and employees were allegedly transferred with the business – Employees contended they were forced to work with Lafarge and demanded reinstatement with Tata – Government of Jharkhand made references to the Labour Court regarding the dispute – Supreme Court found references incorrectly framed, as they pre-supposed employees were transferred rather than allowing determination of whether they remained Tata employees [Paras 1-13].

Jurisdiction and Terms of Reference – Industrial Tribunal’s jurisdiction limited to terms of reference – References should reflect true nature of disputes – Supreme Court held that the references made by the Government precluded Tata from arguing its case, as they presumed transfer of employees to Lafarge – References were quashed with direction for appropriate rewording [Paras 12-20].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – References quashed – Direction to appropriate Government to make fresh references reflecting the actual dispute within two months from receipt of the judgment.

Condonation of Delay – Special Appeal – Appellants sought condonation of delay for 98 days in filing Special Appeal against eviction order – High Court refused condonation based on six-day discrepancy in filing dates – Supreme Court found the High Court's refusal unjustified considering the minor delay and inadvertent error in dates – Emphasized liberal approach in delay condonation for substantial justice [Paras 3-10].

Administrative Errors – Inadvertent Mistakes – Supreme Court noted the apparent error in the condonation application regarding filing dates – Held that such minor inadvertent mistakes should not prevent adjudication on merits, especially for state appellants [Paras 9-10].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Delay condoned – Case remitted to High Court for disposal on merits.

Employment Law – Compulsory Retirement – RSRTC compulsorily retired the Respondent citing past misconduct – High Court quashed the order, noting misconduct was remote and not indicative of current performance – Supreme Court examined whether entire service record including past adverse entries can justify compulsory retirement [Paras 1-10].

"Washed Off Theory" – Supreme Court discussed the principle that past adverse entries lose significance after subsequent promotions – Clarified that for compulsory retirement, entire service record including old entries can be considered if it indicates persistent issues affecting public interest [Paras 14-24].

Adverse Service Record – Supreme Court noted Respondent's dismal service record with multiple instances of misconduct – Immediate past record also contained adverse entries, justifying compulsory retirement [Paras 26-27].

Judicial Review of Compulsory Retirement – Court reiterated limited scope of judicial review in cases of compulsory retirement, emphasizing subjective satisfaction of the employer and public interest [Para 28].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Order of compulsory retirement upheld.

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Appeal concerning whether the High Court was justified in condoning a delay of 2449 days – Appellant, a teacher, filed writ petition for approval of appointment and interim order granted – Managing committee delayed in filing appeal against the interim order – Supreme Court emphasized judicial discretion must be guided by reason and justice, not subjective perceptions – High Court's liberal approach in condoning the delay criticized as neglectful of procedural diligence and bona fides [Paras 2-22].

Principles for Condonation – Supreme Court outlined principles for condoning delay: liberal approach, sufficient cause, bona fides, reasonableness, avoiding technicalities, ensuring public justice, avoiding gross negligence or mala fides, and maintaining judicial consistency [Paras 15-16].

Adjudication on Merits – Court noted that adjudication on merits is paramount, but procedural rules and timelines ensure orderly conduct of litigation – Emphasized importance of timely legal remedies and responsibilities of public authorities [Para 12].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court's order condoning delay set aside – Appeal by managing committee dismissed – Single Judge directed to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously.

Criminal Law – Negligence – Appellant, a renowned surgeon, convicted under Section 338 read with Section 109 IPC for not performing an advised surgery himself, and subsequently not attending the patient post-operation – Alleged acts of omission and commission during surgery amounted to criminal negligence – Supreme Court held that the decision to advise surgery was not negligent given the patient’s deteriorating condition – Failure to perform surgery himself or provide post-operative care deemed professional misconduct, not criminal negligence [Paras 1-20].

Omission as Act – Supreme Court clarified that “omission” could be considered an “act” under IPC sections 32, 33, and 36 – However, such omission by the appellant did not rise to the level of criminal negligence under Section 338 IPC – Emphasized higher degree of negligence required for criminal liability [Paras 28-34].

Professional Misconduct – While appellant’s actions amounted to professional misconduct and civil liability, they did not constitute criminal negligence – Appellant’s failure to attend the patient post-operation resulted in breach of duty of care, but not sufficient for criminal conviction [Paras 35-45].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Conviction under Section 338 read with Section 109 IPC set aside – Findings of professional misconduct by Maharashtra Medical Council remain unaffected.