Employment Law – Wrongful Termination – Entitlement to Back Wages:

Appellant appointed as Clerk but wrongly shown as Librarian in records – Resulted in non-absorption of services when school was taken over by the State – High Court directed reinstatement but denied back wages – Supreme Court held denial of back wages unjust as appellant was out of service due to no fault of his own [Paras 1-6].

Clerical Error in Employment Records – Rectification and Legal Consequences:

Inspection report erroneously listed appellant as Librarian – Representations led to correction confirming appellant as Clerk – Despite rectification, services were not absorbed due to initial error – Supreme Court ruled that the appellant was entitled to full back wages with interest as he was wrongfully kept out of service [Paras 3-6].

Judicial Review – High Court’s Erroneous Decision:

High Court erroneously linked non-payment to suspension – Appellant was not under suspension but out of service due to administrative mistake – Supreme Court corrected this by granting full back wages from the period of wrongful termination until reinstatement [Paras 5-6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s denial of back wages set aside – Appellant entitled to full back wages with 9% interest for the period kept out of service until reinstatement – Respondents directed to pay within three months from receipt of the order [Para 6].

Land Acquisition – Compensation Enhancement – Burden of Proof:

Appeal arises from the High Court’s reversal of the Reference Court's decision to enhance compensation from Rs. 26.25 per sq. mtr. to Rs. 85 per sq. mtr. – Supreme Court reiterates the principle that in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the burden to prove inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Collector rests on the landowner – Reference Court must act as an original court and cannot enhance compensation without cogent evidence from the claimant [Paras 1-12].

Failure to Adduce Evidence – Consequences:

Claimants failed to present evidence proving higher market value – Reference Court erred in enhancing compensation solely based on perceived inadequacies in the SLAO’s reasoning without substantive proof – High Court justified in reversing the Reference Court’s enhancement in absence of such evidence [Paras 10-12].

Opportunity to Adduce Evidence – Judicial Discretion:

Supreme Court grants claimants another opportunity to adduce evidence – Emphasizes fair trial principles and rectifying procedural misconceptions – Directs that any higher compensation determined will not earn interest for the period between the initial Reference Court judgment and the Supreme Court order [Paras 13-14].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – High Court judgment modified – Cases remanded to Reference Court for fresh disposal – Claimants to present evidence for compensation enhancement – No interest on enhanced amount for specified period [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Eyewitness Testimony – Role of Each Accused:

Appellants convicted under Sections 302 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC for murder and criminal intimidation – High Court upheld convictions but set aside Section 506 conviction – Supreme Court examines the specific role and intention of each appellant, differentiating between primary and secondary involvement in the crime [Paras 1-16].

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility and Reliability:

Prosecution relied on testimonies of PWs 8, 16, and 18, who provided consistent accounts of the altercation and assault – Supreme Court affirmed the credibility of eyewitnesses whose depositions were corroborated by medical evidence and the sequence of events [Paras 7-12].

Differentiation of Charges – Application of Sections 34 and 325 IPC:

Appellant No. 2’s involvement assessed as causing grievous hurt without shared intention to commit murder – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC altered to Section 325 IPC for Appellant No. 2 – Appellant No. 1’s conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld due to direct involvement and use of a deadly weapon [Paras 15-16].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed for Appellant-Manoj (Appellant No. 1) – Conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence upheld – Conviction of Appellant No. 2 altered from Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to Section 325 IPC – Appellant No. 2 sentenced to imprisonment already undergone (3.5 years) – Released if not required in any other case – Fine remains unaltered [Para 16].

Education Policy – Language of Instruction – Primary Education –

Government of Karnataka's orders mandating Kannada or mother tongue as the medium of instruction for classes 1 to 4 – Full Bench of Karnataka High Court quashed parts of the orders applicable to unaided schools – Supreme Court addressed constitutional questions, directing consideration by a larger bench due to the significance of primary education and fundamental rights involved – Issues included the definition of mother tongue, rights to choose the medium of instruction, and implications of Articles 14, 19, 29, and 30 of the Constitution [Paras 1-35].

Constitutional Law – Article 350A –

Interpretation of Article 350A regarding State obligations to provide instruction in the mother tongue at the primary level – State's power to impose mother tongue or regional language as medium of instruction challenged – Larger Bench to consider whether this compulsion affects fundamental rights [Paras 29-35].

Medium of Instruction – Choice and Rights –

Whether students or parents have the right to choose the medium of instruction at the primary stage – Larger Bench to examine if State's language policy infringes upon constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, 29, and 30 – Impact on government-aided versus unaided schools also to be assessed [Paras 29-35].

Decision – Referred to Larger Bench –

Matters involving substantial questions of constitutional importance referred to a Constitution Bench – Questions include the meaning of mother tongue, rights to choose medium of instruction, and the validity of the State's language policy under constitutional provisions [Para 35].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Misconduct – Proportionality of Punishment –

Appellant, a police officer, dismissed for misconduct including rude language to a superior, improper attire, and refusal to comply with instructions – Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority, and Tribunal upheld the charges – Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and review petition – Supreme Court finds dismissal disproportionate to the misconduct – Reduces punishment to demotion to the rank of constable with continuity of service but no arrears for the period between dismissal and reinstatement [Paras 1-16].

Judicial Review – Doctrine of Proportionality –

Court's role in reviewing disciplinary actions – Emphasis on proportionality of punishment – Reference to precedents highlighting the need to avoid excessively harsh penalties for minor misconduct – Courts to intervene where punishment is outrageously disproportionate [Paras 9-12].

False Allegations – Aggravating Factor –

Appellant falsely accused the superior officer of casteist remarks – Court acknowledges this as a serious misconduct, warranting a reduction in leniency compared to similar cases without false allegations [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed in Part –

Dismissal order modified – Appellant reinstated as constable without arrears – Court avoids remand due to prolonged litigation since 2001 – Directs expeditious compliance by the respondents [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law – Concurrent Sentences – Negotiable Instruments Act –

Appellant, a director in several companies, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonour – Multiple cases resulting in imprisonment sentences ranging from 6 months to 1 year – High Court declined prayer for concurrent running of sentences – Supreme Court held that while the court has discretion to direct concurrent running of sentences, it should be exercised judiciously based on the nature of the offence and transaction – In the present case, sentences relating to transactions with each company should run concurrently but not across different companies or unrelated transactions [Paras 2-18].

Judicial Discretion – Section 427 CrPC –

Discussed the discretionary power under Section 427(1) of CrPC for concurrent running of sentences – Emphasized need for judicial exercise of discretion, avoiding a mechanical approach – Recognized that transactions arising out of a single loan transaction justify concurrent running of sentences [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed in Part –

Substantive sentences for cases involving the same transaction to run concurrently – Sentences involving different companies or independent transactions to run consecutively – Sentences in default of payment of fine/compensation to run consecutively as per Section 427 CrPC [Paras 16-18].

Public Premises – Unauthorized Occupation – Eviction –

The case addresses the unauthorized occupation of government accommodation by members of the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary beyond the prescribed period. It highlights the inefficacy of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 in dealing with evictions and the need for strict measures to vacate government quarters for eligible persons. The Supreme Court emphasizes the necessity for additional guidelines and compliance with existing rules to ensure timely vacation of premises [Paras 1-11, 16-28].

Guidelines – Unauthorized Occupation – Judicial Intervention –

The Court, noting the challenges in evicting unauthorized occupants and the delays caused by statutory appeals and writ proceedings, underscores the importance of adherence to the Act's provisions. It recommends measures such as pre-retirement notices, accountability of the concerned department, strict timelines for eviction orders, and possible suspension of unauthorized occupants to expedite the process. It also addresses the issue of memorials in government houses and suggests future prevention of such conversions [Paras 12-29].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed –

The appeal by S.D. Bandi is dismissed with directions for the competent authority to evict the appellant from the government quarter. The Court issues comprehensive guidelines to Union of India, States, and Union Territories for dealing with unauthorized occupancy and ensuring efficient use of government accommodation [Para 4, 29].

Election Law – Freebies in Election Manifestos – Corrupt Practice –

Appellant challenged the distribution of freebies such as colour TVs, mixies, grinders, laptops, etc., by political parties in their election manifestos, claiming it constituted bribery under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Supreme Court examined whether such promises could be deemed corrupt practices. It held that while election promises are statements of policy, not all promises amount to corrupt practices, and it is not within the court's domain to legislate on the matter. The provisions of the Act specifically relate to individual candidates, not political parties, and penal provisions must be strictly construed [Paras 48-56].

Public Purpose – Directive Principles – Distribution of Freebies –

Addressing the argument that the distribution of freebies does not serve a public purpose and violates Article 14, the Court emphasized that state largesse linked to Directive Principles of State Policy should aim to improve the living standards of the people. The state has the discretion to frame schemes for public welfare, and the role of the Court is limited in scrutinizing these schemes unless they are evidently unconstitutional. Distribution schemes like free laptops, mixies, grinders, and colour TVs were found to be within the ambit of public purpose as per the government's assertions of welfare objectives [Paras 57-60].

Judicial Review – Guidelines for Distribution Schemes –

The Court acknowledged the need for accountability and transparency in the implementation of such schemes. It recommended guidelines to ensure that state resources are used judiciously and directed the government to frame suitable criteria for identifying beneficiaries and implementing the schemes. The role of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in auditing expenditures was affirmed but emphasized that preemptive scrutiny before deployment is not within the CAG's mandate [Paras 28-29, 46-47].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed –

The appeals were dismissed with the Court holding that promises made in election manifestos by political parties do not constitute corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The schemes challenged were found to be within the scope of public purpose, and the writ jurisdiction was not applicable against political parties. The Court recommended appropriate measures for ensuring the fair use of public funds and accountability in distribution schemes [Para 57, 60, 46-47].

Land Acquisition – Validity – Public Purpose –

The case revolves around the acquisition of land by the Pune Municipal Corporation for the extension of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) market yard. The High Court upheld the acquisition proceedings but quashed the withdrawal of the acquisition directed by the Minister of Revenue, Maharashtra, on grounds of arbitrariness, malafides, and non-compliance with principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court found no merit in the challenge against the acquisition but partially set aside the findings of malafides attributed to the Minister [Paras 1-37].

Judicial Review – Delay and Laches –

The High Court rightly dismissed the challenge to the acquisition proceedings based on inordinate delay and laches. The appellants failed to object during the relevant stages of the planning and acquisition process, only raising issues after the award was made and possession notices were issued. The Court reiterated that challenges to acquisition proceedings must be timely and vigilant [Paras 15-18].

Administrative Action – Natural Justice –

The withdrawal of acquisition proceedings by the Minister without proper notice to the APMC and without publication in the official gazette was held invalid. The Court emphasized the necessity of following due process and providing an opportunity for a fair hearing to the affected parties, adhering to principles of natural justice [Paras 21-27].

Malafides – Burden of Proof –

While the High Court attributed malafides to the Minister, the Supreme Court found that the allegations lacked specific particulars and high degree of proof required to establish 'malice in fact'. The judgment noted that arbitrary or flawed administrative actions do not automatically equate to malafides without substantive evidence of improper motives [Paras 39-46].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed –

Civil Appeals No. 2853, 2854, and 2855 of 2002 dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be paid by Mutha Associates to APMC Pune. Civil Appeals No. 2856 and 2857 of 2002 allowed, setting aside the High Court's findings of malafides against the Minister, Narayan Rane [Paras 47].