Arbitration – Default in Appointment of Arbitrator – Section 11(6) of Arbitration Act – Power of Court to Appoint – Respondent issued notices under Section 11 seeking appointment of arbitrator; Appellant failed to appoint within 30 days – Respondent filed petition under Section 11(6) before Delhi High Court – Appointment of arbitrator by appellant after filing of petition held invalid – Once Section 11(6) petition is filed, the right of the other party to appoint an arbitrator under contract stands extinguished [Paras 7-9, 14-16].

Contractual Arbitration Clause – Adherence to Clause after Delay – Clause 24 of agreement provided appointment by Director General of Supplies & Disposals – Appellant appointed arbitrator after petition under Section 11(6) was filed – Held: Clause 24 cannot be invoked post filing of petition – Court rightly appointed independent arbitrator [Paras 6, 9, 16].

Distinguishing Precedents – Appointment Outside Agreement – Cases relied on by appellant (M.P. Gupta and S. Rajan) found distinguishable – In those cases, appointment outside agreement occurred before Section 11(6) petition was filed – Present case involved appointment after filing, hence precedent not applicable [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Datar Switchgears and Punj Lloyd Applied – Once party fails to appoint arbitrator within 30 days and other party approaches court under Section 11(6), right to appoint stands forfeited – High Court rightly appointed arbitrator – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14-17].

Service Law - Voluntary Retirement – Withdrawal before acceptance – Effect of scheme clause barring withdrawal – The FCI VRS, 2002 (Clause VIII(d)) stated that once an employee applies for VRS, withdrawal is not permitted and the competent authority shall decide within three months – Respondent applied for VRS on 13.09.2004, withdrew on 27.09.2004, but FCI accepted on 09.11.2004 – Held: Even where the scheme forbids withdrawal, the employee can withdraw the offer any time before acceptance; the bar does not operate to prevent pre-acceptance withdrawal – High Court rightly quashed the acceptance issued after withdrawal [Paras 4-6].

Precedents – Distinction between schemes – O.P. Swaranakar and Romesh Chander Kanoji – Supreme Court clarified that where a scheme (e.g., SBIVRS) provides a specific window for withdrawal, it must be exercised within that period; where the scheme bars withdrawal altogether (as in nationalised banks/FCI), withdrawal is still effective if made prior to acceptance – Applied: State Bank of Patiala v. Romesh Chander Kanoji – Distinguished/Explained: Bank of India v. O.P. Swaranakar [Paras 5-6].

Construction of VRS terms – Decision window of the employer – Clause VIII(d) grants up to three months to accept/reject; if the employee withdraws before acceptance, the offer lapses and cannot be acted upon thereafter – Acceptance after a valid withdrawal is ineffectual [Para 6].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court order upheld – Respondent’s withdrawal dated 27.09.2004, made before employer’s acceptance on 09.11.2004, rendered the subsequent acceptance invalid – No order as to costs [Para 6].

Murder – Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility of Sole Witness – Conviction Upheld – Sarabjit Singh, grandson of one of the deceased, was the sole eyewitness – Though some discrepancies existed in his statement regarding dying declarations, Supreme Court held his testimony regarding witnessing the attack and presence of accused was credible and reliable – Minor contradictions did not discredit core testimony – Conviction under Section 302 IPC sustained [Paras 3–9].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Discrepancy in Statements – No Material Impact – FIR stated both victims made dying declarations; in evidence, only one was claimed to have spoken – Court held this discrepancy immaterial as conviction was not solely based on dying declarations – Oral testimony and corroborating forensic evidence sufficient for conviction [Paras 7–9].

Recovery Evidence – Forensic and Circumstantial Corroboration – Murder weapons (gandasi and danda), fingerprints, locket, and clothes recovered at instance of accused – Injuries on accused matched timing – Recovery evidence provided corroboration of eyewitness testimony and established guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Para 4, 13].

Death Sentence – Commutation to Life Imprisonment – Not ‘Rarest of Rare’ Case – Supreme Court found that though the crime was brutal, it appeared to have been committed in a fit of passion – No evidence of prior planning or extreme depravity – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment – Crime did not meet threshold for ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine [Para 14].

Decision – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld – Death sentence set aside – Life imprisonment awarded – Appeal partly allowed to extent of sentence reduction [Para 14–15].

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings – Minor Penalty – Personal Hearing Not Mandatory – Rule 21 of Punjab Civil Services Rules – High Court's Error in Quashing Penalty – The respondent, a Sub-Divisional Engineer, was awarded the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect after the disciplinary authority disagreed with the Enquiry Officer’s exoneration – On review, the High Court set aside the punishment on the ground that no personal hearing was provided during review proceedings – Held: Under Rule 21, personal hearing is not mandatory for minor penalties such as stoppage of increments – High Court’s reasoning was incorrect and unsustainable [Paras 5-6].

Speaking Order – Review Rejection Reasoned – Finding of High Court Unjustified – The High Court also held that the review order was not a speaking order – Held: The order dated 24.6.2004 was reasoned and based on material on record – High Court's contrary conclusion was not supported by the record [Para 6].

Judgment – Appeal Allowed – Disciplinary Authority’s Action Restored – Supreme Court restored the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and set aside the High Court’s decision – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 7-8].

Panchayat Administration – District Development Officer v. President – Administrative Powers Clarified – Sections 83 & 162 of Gujarat Panchayats Act – High Court correctly held that while elected Panchayat officials play a key role in policy-making, executive authority in service matters lies with the District Development Officer (DDO) – Held: DDO is not subordinate to the President in administrative execution; supervisory role of President is limited to implementation of resolutions or policy, not day-to-day decisions [Paras 8-9, 21, 31, 33-34].

Local Self-Government – Part IX of Constitution – Constitutional Autonomy Not Undermined – Challenge based on violation of Article 243G rejected – Held: The Gujarat Panchayats Act lawfully balances elected representation with administrative functionality – DDO’s role is statutory and essential to governance – Decision of High Court upheld as not violative of constitutional provisions [Paras 26-28].

Interpretation – “Subject to Orders, if any” – Scope Limited – Section 162(1) – Phrase “subject to orders, if any, of the President” does not mean prior approval is mandatory – Held: Powers of DDO are statutory and independent; President may intervene in individual cases, but cannot issue omnibus directions or require pre-clearance of every administrative action [Paras 31-33].

Delegated Legislation – Validity of Rules – Rules framed under Section 227(5) consistent with Act – High Court not in error in relying on service-related rules to clarify administrative roles – Held: Rules rightly interpreted to affirm DDO’s powers in appointments, transfers, promotions, and disciplinary matters [Paras 40-41].

Political v. Administrative Wing – Division of Roles – Panchayat Governance – Political executives formulate policies; civil servants implement them – Held: Effective Panchayat administration requires coordination, not dominance – President cannot usurp execution functions assigned to DDO under the Act [Paras 35-38].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Orders of High Court upheld – Resolution No. 6 and Office Order dated 13-12-2001 found illegal – No constitutional or statutory violation proved – No costs awarded [Paras 42].

Service Law - Promotion – Sealed Cover Procedure – Departmental Proceedings Initiated After DPC – Not Permissible – Respondent recommended for promotion by DPC – Sealed cover procedure adopted on the ground that vigilance case was pending – However, charge sheet was issued only after recommendation – Held: Sealed cover procedure invalid as per Para 6 of circular dated 21.01.1993 read with Para 2 – DPC recommendation could not be withheld absent initiation of disciplinary proceedings at that stage [Paras 4, 6, 9-10].

Right to Be Considered for Promotion – Fundamental Right – Interpretation of Circular – Right to be considered for promotion includes effective and meaningful consideration – Administrative instructions cannot override statutory rules – Circular must be read in conformity with binding precedent – DPC must be guided by material existing on the date of consideration [Paras 8-9].

Precedents – K.V. Jankiraman Followed – Requirement of Chargesheet – Supreme Court reiterates that sealed cover can be used only post issuance of charge memo – Preliminary enquiry or mere contemplation of disciplinary action insufficient – Earlier promotion denial set aside [Paras 10, 12].

Distinguished Cases – R.S. Sharma, H.C. Khurana, Kewal Kumar – Not Applicable – Those cases involved situations where charges were framed or decision to initiate proceedings had already been taken prior to DPC – No such situation existed here – Hence, reliance by appellant misplaced [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Promotion Denial Invalid – Circular wrongly interpreted by department – Tribunal and High Court rightly directed promotion from date junior was promoted – No interference warranted – Appeal dismissed with costs [Para 14].

Criminal Law - Registration of FIR – Duty of Police – Section 154 CrPC – FIR Must Be Registered – Petitioners alleged failure of police to act upon complaints disclosing cognizable offences related to hate speech – Held: Police is bound to register an FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed – However, if police fails to do so, remedy lies under Sections 190 and 200 CrPC before a Magistrate – No writ under Article 32 maintainable for such purpose [Paras 1, 3, 5, 7].

Criminal Procedure – Alternative Remedy – Complaint to Magistrate under Sections 190 and 200 CrPC – Writ Not Maintainable – Supreme Court reaffirmed that the proper course in case of police inaction is to approach the Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure – Petitions under Article 32 seeking direction to police to register FIR are not maintainable – View reaffirmed from earlier cases like AIIMS Employees' Union, Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre, and Hari Singh [Paras 5–7].

Conflict in Precedent – Harmonisation – Ramesh Kumari vs. AIIMS and Others – No Conflict – Petitioners cited Ramesh Kumari to support their claim for direct registration of FIR through writ – Held: Ramesh Kumari only affirms the duty of police to register FIR in case of cognizable offences – It does not address the procedural remedy for police inaction, which remains governed by Chapter XV of CrPC [Para 7].

Sanction for Prosecution – Role of Government – Section 196 CrPC – Petitioners alleged delay in granting sanction for prosecution – Held: It is for the concerned government to consider and decide on the issue of sanction – Directed that appropriate decision be taken within 3 months of receipt of order [Para 8(3)].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Alternate Remedies Directed – Supreme Court declined to issue writ under Article 32 for directing registration of FIRs – Held: Petitioners to follow statutory remedy under CrPC – Direction issued to concerned government to decide sanction issue within three months – No opinion expressed on merits [Para 8].

Army Service – Discharge under Rule 13 – Section 22 vs. Section 20 of Army Act – Validity of Discharge – Appellant, found guilty of misconduct during court of inquiry, was discharged by competent authority citing Section 20 – It was contended that punishment could only be imposed after court-martial under Section 63 – Held: Discharge order valid under Section 22 and Rule 13(3); wrong citation of Section 20 does not vitiate order as long as correct power exists – Discharge held to be administrative and non-punitive in nature [Paras 18-20].

Natural Justice – Opportunity to Defend – Adequate Compliance – Appellant given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during court of inquiry but did not avail – Show cause notice issued before discharge – Response found unsatisfactory by competent authority – Held: Principles of natural justice duly followed – No violation found [Paras 19-20].

Court of Inquiry – Use of Evidence – Permissible Scope – Appellant argued that inquiry evidence could not be used without court-martial – Held: Court of inquiry was held for fact-finding under Rule 177 – Not equivalent to court-martial – Evidence used for administrative discharge, not punitive action – Therefore, permissible [Paras 13, 21].

Wrong Quotation of Legal Provision – Effect – Discharge order cited Section 20 instead of Section 22 – Held: So long as power to discharge exists and is exercised by competent authority, mere wrong reference does not vitiate the order – Discharge upheld [Para 20].

Relief – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed High Court Division Bench judgment upholding discharge – Held: No perversity or illegality in findings – Appeal devoid of merit – Dismissed without costs [Para 22].

PIL - Section 158(6), Motor Vehicles Act – Mandatory compliance by police – Directions issued to ensure prompt forwarding of accident reports to Claims Tribunals and insurers.

Motor Accident Claims – Compliance with Section 158(6) MV Act – Mandatory Reporting by Police – Non-compliance addressed – Section 158(6) imposes a statutory duty on the police to report accident details involving death or bodily injury to the Claims Tribunal and insurer within 30 days – Writ petition filed highlighting widespread neglect of this obligation across States and Union Territories – Held: Language of the statute is mandatory, non-compliance unjustified – All States/UTs directed to ensure strict implementation, with periodical checking and accountability for defaulting officers [Paras 1, 3, 7, 9-10].

Interpretation of 'As Soon As' – Mandatory Promptitude in Reporting – The phrase “as soon as” in Section 158(6) denotes a requirement of urgency and reasonable dispatch – Compliance must be contemporaneous with police report of accident – Held: The expression mandates prompt action and cannot be interpreted loosely – Delays in such reporting lead to inflated or fraudulent claims and hinder justice [Paras 7-8].

False Claims – Preventive Mechanism – Early Reporting to Insurer – If police reports are promptly sent to insurers and tribunals, false and exaggerated claims can be curbed – Delayed filing hampers verification and adds to pendency – Court endorses petitioners’ plea that enforcement of Section 158(6) will streamline adjudication, improve claim settlement, and reduce fraudulent litigation [Para 6].

Direction to States and Union Territories – Compliance Monitoring – Inspector Generals of Police and Department of Transport to ensure compliance – Failure to act as per statute shall result in disciplinary action against erring officers – Periodic verification and central oversight mandated to ensure uniform compliance nationwide [Para 10].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Directions issued to all States and Union Territories to enforce compliance with Section 158(6) and Rule 150/Form 54 – Inspector General and Transport Departments to conduct checks and initiate action for non-compliance – Petition disposed of with these directions [Paras 10-11].