Tender Law – NIT Clauses 5(D) & 5(B) – JV Agreement – Appeal Partly Allowed – Appellant disqualified for not submitting JV agreement though submitted work execution certificate confirming 45% share in prior consortium – High Court upheld disqualification and also held appellant lacked spare washery capacity – Held: Clause 5(D) did not mandate JV agreement itself; certificate sufficed; rejection contrary to NIT terms – However, spare capacity issue under Clause 5(B) requires reconsideration – Matter remanded – [Paras 14–21, 22–25].

NIT Clause 5(D) – Past Experience – Proof of Proportionate Share – Certificate vs. JV Agreement – Work execution certificate from MSMC confirming 45% JV share and completed works satisfied Clause 5(D) – Absence of JV agreement not fatal where NIT did not expressly require it – Tender authority erred in disqualifying bid – [Paras 15–20].

Scope of Judicial Review – High Court’s Overreach – Revisional Court cannot travel beyond reasons given by Tender Committee – High Court erred in disqualifying appellant on spare capacity (Clause 5(B)) without issue being raised or tested – [Paras 22–24].

Decision – Impugned judgment and Committee decision set aside insofar as Clause 5(D) disqualification – Issue of spare washery capacity under Clause 5(B) remanded to High Court for fresh determination – Appeal partly allowed – [Paras 25–26].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Limitation for Filing Complaint – Section 142(b) NI Act – Delay of Five Days – No Application for Condonation – Proceedings Quashed – Complaint under Section 138 filed beyond 30-day statutory period – Trial Court erroneously assumed filing was within limitation and issued summons; High Court upheld – Supreme Court held cognizance without considering limitation and condonation impermissible; filing of application with reasons for delay mandatory – Order issuing summons set aside; complaint quashed – Appeal allowed [Paras 6–9].

Condonation of Delay – Mandatory Requirement – Court clarified that even though proviso to Section 142 permits condonation, it is contingent upon complainant filing an application/affidavit disclosing reasons – Automatic or presumed condonation not permissible – Judicial duty requires recording satisfaction on sufficiency of reasons before taking cognizance [Paras 6–8].

Civil Proceedings – Independent Remedy – Court clarified dismissal of criminal complaint under NI Act would not prejudice pending civil proceedings for recovery of cheque amount [Para 10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Summoning order and High Court judgment set aside – Criminal complaint quashed – Civil recovery proceedings unaffected [Paras 9–10].

Industrial Disputes—Section 11A—Scope of interference by Tribunal—Domestic enquiry held fair—Tribunal cannot re-appreciate evidence as an appellate forum – Tribunal and High Court exceeded jurisdiction by re-evaluating evidence after the enquiry’s fairness had attained finality – Held: Interference impermissible when Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities’ findings are based on evidence and are not perverse [Paras 12, 39-41]

Service Law—Bank employees—Integrity and probity—Higher standard in banking sector – Supreme Court reiterates that absolute devotion, integrity and honesty are sine qua non for bank employees—Courts should be slow to dilute discipline in such cases [Para 38]

Departmental proceedings vs Criminal trial—Standards of proof—Acquittal in criminal case does not vitiate concluded departmental findings – Standard of proof differs—Subsequent criminal acquittal has no effect on earlier domestic enquiry or the punishment if enquiry was otherwise valid [Para 10]

Evidence in Disciplinary Enquiry—Non-examination of some witnesses—Admissions and documentary material – Where the record (including employee’s statements and contemporaneous bank documents) supports guilt, adequacy/reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed before Tribunal—Findings tested on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 16-19, 39]

Punishment—Compulsory retirement—Nature of consequences—Retiral benefits – Compulsory retirement does not deny gratuity and other pensionary benefits—which are denied only on dismissal—Tribunal’s view that reinstatement was necessary for retiral benefits is erroneous [Paras 40-41]

Decision Appeal Allowed – Orders of Tribunal and High Court set aside—Order of Disciplinary Authority imposing compulsory retirement affirmed—Respondent entitled to gratuity and other pensionary benefits as per law—Appeal disposed of [Paras 41-43]

Expunction of Adverse Remarks – Counsel’s duty of candour – Article 136 – Remarks Expunged – High Court, while deciding W.P. No. 6228 of 2022, recorded displeasure at the conduct of counsel (appellant) for not disclosing that the constitutional validity of amended Rule 6 (upheld in W.P. No. 18699/2020) had not been overturned – Appellant tendered unconditional apology and asserted he was not counsel in the Arushi Mahant matter; omission, if any, was bona fide – Held: In the facts, adverse observations in para 7 of the High Court’s order were avoidable and are expunged as against the appellant [Paras 4–5, 7, 9–10].

Procedural Consequence – Order on modification application – Article 136 – High Court order quashed – Since the adverse remarks stand expunged, the Supreme Court also set aside the High Court’s order dated 05/01/2024 dismissing IA No. 17812/2023 (seeking modification to delete the remarks) – Appeals disposed of accordingly [Paras 11–12].

Non-appearance of Respondents – Proceeding ex parte – Despite service, no one appeared for the State/Respondents; Court proceeded on record and submissions of appellant – Did not affect the merits of expunction granted in peculiar facts [Para 8].

Professional Impropriety – Standard for judicial censure – Appellate caution – While counsel owe a duty of full disclosure when citing precedent, courts should exercise restraint in recording personal strictures unless clearly warranted – In this case, possibility of bona fide oversight justified expunction [Paras 4, 9–10].

Railway Service Law - Railways Recruitment & Training – SSE – Master Circular No.29 – Training-end Written Test Mandatory – Appeal Allowed in Part – RRB Employment Notice required training; Master Circular/Manual mandated qualifying written test at the end of initial training and warned retention depends on passing the test – Respondent completed 46 of 52 weeks but twice failed the G&SR course examination; CAT upheld termination; High Court set aside termination holding no “departmental examination” – Held: “Departmental examination” (promotion) is distinct from “training examination” (recruitment stage); Master Circular governs, and passing the written test post-training is a prerequisite for absorption – Termination upheld; however, recovery of stipend erroneously paid for second attempt not justified – Appeal allowed; HC judgment set aside; writ dismissed; stipend recovery quashed [Paras 3, 4, 5, 6–8, 12, 18.1–18.7, 19–21, 23–24].

Recruitment vs. Appointment – Distinction Clarified – Legal Effect – The Court reiterates that “recruitment” signifies selection/approval and not actual posting; “appointment” is the act of posting to office – Provisional appointment as Trainee SSE did not confer permanent status absent successful completion of training and test – Applied precedents: Prafulla Kumar Swain and Ashok Ram Parhad [Para 21].

Alleged Discrimination – Similarly Placed Trainees – No Unequal Treatment – Claim that peers were appointed after only 46 weeks and without G&SR training rejected – Record (including RTI responses) showed the named trainees completed the 52-week training; many others took and passed the G&SR test when respondent failed – No arbitrariness; Articles 14/16 not violated [Paras 8.1–8.3, 18.6, 22].

Governing Instrument – Master Circular vs. Revised Training Module – Hierarchy & Scope – Revised Training Module (RBE 11/2010) fixes duration/content but does not supersede the Master Circular requirement of a qualifying written test – Absent a test, adequacy of training cannot be ascertained – High Court erred in concluding no examination prescribed for conferring permanent status [Paras 18.1, 19–20].

Recovery of Stipend – Administrative Inadvertence – No Misrepresentation – Recovery of stipend paid for the second training attempt impermissible where payment occurred due to department’s inadvertence and not the trainee’s fraud/misrepresentation – Demand set aside [Para 24].

Decision: Appeal allowed; judgment of the High Court dated 06.02.2023 set aside; Writ Petition dismissed; termination order dated 04.01.2019 upheld; recovery notice dated 26.02.2019 for stipend quashed; parties to bear their own costs [Paras 23–25].

Criminal Appeal – Conviction for Trespass and Assault – IPC Ss. 447 & 323 – Acquittal – Appellants convicted by Trial Court and affirmed by High Court despite closure report finding land belonged to State – Complainant admitted prior enmity and gave only self-serving testimony corroborated by interested witnesses – Held: Prosecution evidence weak, no proof of ownership or possession by complainant, complaint a counterblast to proceedings under S.107 CrPC – Conviction unsustainable – Appeal allowed; appellants acquitted [Paras 6–10].

Probation of Offenders Act – Trial Court had granted probation under S.4 despite conviction – However, since conviction itself found unsustainable by Supreme Court, benefit of probation became redundant [Paras 2, 5, 10].

Appellate Scrutiny – High Court erred in mechanically affirming trial court findings without appreciating lack of independent corroboration and ignoring Investigating Officer’s closure report – Supreme Court intervened to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 7–8].

Decision – Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted; bail bonds discharged [Para 10].

Bail in UAPA Case – Continued Incarceration – Bail Granted – Accused facing charges under UAPA and IPC for alleged association with banned organization and money transactions – Appellant incarcerated for over 2 years and 7 months – Only 3 witnesses examined so far – Trial likely to be prolonged – Some co-accused already granted bail – Court finds overt act attributable to appellant not so grave to deny bail – Held: Bail granted with conditions imposed by Trial Court [Paras 3–8].

Trial Expeditiousness – Direction to Trial Court – Supreme Court directs Trial Court to conclude trial within one year considering prolonged incarceration and slow pace of trial [Para 10].

Consequences of Non-Cooperation – Conditions for Cancellation of Bail – Court grants liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation of bail if the appellant is involved in future illegal activity or does not cooperate in trial – Preventive safeguards added to balance liberty and security [Para 9].

Decision – Impugned order denying bail set aside – Appeal allowed – Bail granted to appellant subject to trial court’s terms and conditions [Paras 8, 11].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 CrPC – Issue of Sanction Deferred – High Court rightly held trial can proceed despite absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC for IPC offences – Supreme Court upheld this view – Held: Question of sanction under Section 197 CrPC can be examined by the Trial Court depending on evidence led during trial [Paras 5–7].

Framing of Charges – PC Act vs IPC – Challenge Limited to IPC Offences – Petitioner accepted framing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act but contested IPC charges for want of sanction – Court permitted challenge before Trial Court and refused to interfere at SLP stage [Paras 3, 5, 7].

Trial Court Jurisdiction – Application for Exemption – Liberty Reserved – Supreme Court granted liberty to petitioner to approach Trial Court under Sections 205 and 317 CrPC (now Sections 228 and 355 BNSS) for exemption from personal appearance [Para 9].

Final Decision – Special Leave Petitions Disposed – High Court Order Not Interfered With – Liberty reserved to raise sanction and exemption issues before Trial Court – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 8–11].

Tenancy Law  – Karnataka Rent Act – Eviction – Landlord-Tenant Relationship Dispute – Sections 27(2)(a),(e),(g),(o) and 43 – Appeal Allowed – Landlord filed eviction; Rent Controller allowed based on rent receipts; HC reversed citing lack of proof of ownership – Held: Rent Controller rightly proceeded once rent receipts acknowledged; title dispute outside Rent Controller’s scope – HC exceeded revisional jurisdiction – Order of Rent Controller restored – [Paras 3–11].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Prima Facie Proof – Section 43 – Rent receipts signed by landlord serve as prima facie evidence of relationship – Once produced, Rent Controller must proceed with hearing – Only when no receipts/lease or documents are doubtful, parties must be relegated to civil court – [Paras 6–8].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court’s Interference Improper – Revisional Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or embark on fact-finding – High Court erred in rejecting jural relationship by questioning landlord’s lineage/title – [Paras 9–11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment of Karnataka High Court dated 31.03.2021 set aside – Order of Rent Controller dated 01.09.2017 directing eviction restored – Pending applications dismissed – [Para 11].