Criminal Law – Transfer of investigation - CBI Investigation – Exceptional Circumstances – Not Made Out – Mere allegation that accused impersonated as an IPS officer and had acquaintance with local police officers is insufficient to warrant CBI investigation – No substantiated claim against investigating officers – Held: The High Court erred in transferring the investigation to CBI at the threshold stage [Paras 5, 8-9].

Multiple FIRs – Distinction in Cause of Action – Earlier FIR Quashed – The FIR registered in Himachal Pradesh against the appellant was quashed due to lack of material – However, the present FIR registered in Haryana was found to be factually distinct – Held: Quashing of the first FIR has no bearing on the validity of the second FIR, which may be investigated by local police [Paras 4-6].

Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights Case – Principles Reiterated – Constitutional courts must direct CBI investigations sparingly and only in exceptional cases where credible material justifies such transfer – Mere suspicion, vague assertions or rivalry does not justify CBI probe [Paras 7-9].

Contempt – CBI Officer’s Apology Accepted – Despite stay of the High Court’s order, CBI registered an FIR – Officer explained that it happened due to inadvertence – Held: Unconditional apology accepted and contempt petition disposed of [Paras 12].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Order transferring the investigation to CBI set aside – Investigation to continue by local police of Haryana – Contempt petition disposed of without further action [Paras 10, 12-14].

Civil Law - Dealership - Retail Outlet Dealership – Declaration of Group in Application – Change Not Permissible – Respondent Bound by Own Declaration – Respondent initially applied under Group 2 for BPCL dealership but later sought change to Group 1 claiming error – Held: Selection guidelines, advertisement, and application form strictly bind applicants by their original declaration and supporting documents – No provision allows subsequent change of group – High Court erred in permitting change [Paras 35, 15-18].

Writ Jurisdiction – Limited Interference in Contractual Matters – Courts to Refrain from Rewriting Contractual Terms – Held: Tender conditions constitute binding rules – Judicial interference permissible only when arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of Article 14 is proved – No such violation found – Respondent took a chance and cannot seek correction after submission [Paras 12-14].

Doctrine of Public Trust – Applicability in Dealership Selection – Strict Compliance Required – Held: Petroleum and natural resources are governed by public trust doctrine – BPCL obligated to adhere strictly to prescribed norms to ensure fairness and transparency – Relaxation of conditions for individual sympathy is impermissible [Paras 16-17].

Sympathy Not Ground for Relaxation – Repeated Litigation Deprecated – Held: Prolonged and repeated writ petitions filed by respondent on untenable grounds wasted judicial time and delayed public interest project – Sympathy alone cannot justify deviation from mandatory selection norms [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Orders Set Aside – BPCL Directed to Continue Dealership Selection as per Rules without Entertaining Respondent’s Application Under Group 1 [Paras 18-19].

Service Law – Removal with Terminal Benefits – Entitlement to Pension – Pension Directed - The respondent, a bank employee, was removed from service on charges of gross misconduct, with appellate authority modifying dismissal to removal with entitlement to terminal benefits – Held: Removal with terminal benefits under Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite

Settlement allows pension if qualifying conditions under the Pension Regulations are met – The respondent having completed requisite qualifying service was entitled to pensionary benefits [Paras 17-22].

Industrial Disputes Act – Power under Section 11A - Labour Court’s award substituting removal with lesser penalty was set aside - High Court rightly confined relief to enforcing the terminal benefits as ordered by the appellate authority – Labour Court's interference with the penalty of removal was held unjustified in earlier round [Paras 7-9].

Pension Regulations vs. Bipartite Settlement – Harmonious Construction Favoured - Regulation 22(1) disentitles employees dismissed or removed from service from pension – However, Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement permits pension where removal is with terminal benefits – Held: Both provisions must be harmoniously construed – Employee removed with terminal benefits remains entitled to pension if eligible under pension regulations – S.K. Kool (2014) 2 SCC 715 applied [Paras 21-22].

Doctrine of Finality – Unchallenged Appellate Order – Binding Effect -

The appellate authority's order granting terminal benefits to the respondent was never challenged and attained finality – The High Court correctly enforced the benefit flowing from the said order [Paras 19-22].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed - Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court – Respondent entitled to pension and terminal benefits – Appeal dismissed without costs [Para 23].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellants convicted under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC for causing death of deceased during a scuffle at his house – Incident arose due to worship at disputed land – Appellants armed with deadly weapons trespassed into deceased's house – Deceased sustained fatal head injury from reverse side of axe – High Court confirmed Trial Court’s conviction – Defence argued injury could have resulted from accidental fall – Held: Ocular testimony of injured eye-witnesses (grandchildren of deceased) and medical evidence corroborated premeditation and intention to cause fatal injury – No merit in plea of accidental injury – Conviction under Section 302 sustained [Paras 2 to 14]​.

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Injured Eye-Witnesses – PW1 to PW3 (grandchildren) were eye-witnesses and injured in the same transaction – Consistent with FIR and medical evidence – Presence inside house justified – Minor contradictions not material – Relationship with deceased did not impair credibility – PW4 (neighbour) corroborated presence of accused with weapons and scuffle – Testimony reliable and trustworthy [Paras 5 to 10]​.

Medical Evidence – Deceased suffered two head injuries, one fatal – Doctor opined injury could be caused by blunt object or accidental fall – Held: In context of proven assault with reverse side of axe, accidental fall theory rejected – Fatal injury consistent with ocular evidence – Offence not covered under Exception to Section 300 IPC – Conviction under Section 302 justified [Paras 11 to 13]​.

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC affirmed – Appellants directed to surrender within two weeks [Paras 14 to 15]​.

Civil Law - Deemed Conveyance – Maintainability of Successive Applications – Bar of Res Judicata – The Competent Authority, in its earlier order dated 22.02.2021, directed the Respondent-Society to first resolve legal complications regarding ownership, leasehold rights, and validity of the lease before seeking deemed conveyance – Without resolving these foundational disputes, the Society filed a fresh application under Section 11 of the 1963 Act – Held: Such successive application is barred by principles of res judicata – The Competent Authority, being a quasi-judicial body, has no power to review its earlier final decision, directly or indirectly – The second order granting deemed conveyance is unsustainable and without jurisdiction [Paras 5(i), 5(ii), 12-14].

Powers of Competent Authority – Limited to Adjudication, No Review Jurisdiction – The Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act has no express or implied power of review – Once an issue has attained finality, the Authority cannot entertain a fresh application on the same cause unless permitted by statute – The High Court erred in affirming the second application without examining the lack of statutory review powers [Paras 5(ii), 12-14].

Unauthorized Construction – Effect on Deemed Conveyance – The subject building was constructed without any sanctioned plans, building permission, or commencement certificate – In absence of compliance with statutory building norms, no vested right for deemed conveyance accrues to the Society – The Competent Authority overlooked this crucial fact while passing the impugned order – Grant of deemed conveyance in such circumstances is legally impermissible [Para 5(iii)].

Minority Rights of Flat Purchasers – Role of Competent Authority – The Competent Authority under Section 11 is bound to protect the interests of all flat purchasers, including those not party to the Society or the application – Passing a deemed conveyance order affecting third parties, without resolving inter-se ownership disputes, is contrary to the statutory mandate and principles of natural justice [Paras 5(iv), 6, 9].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedent and Continuity of Orders – Once the Competent Authority had finally directed the resolution of ownership issues before any further application, the subsequent order ignoring the earlier direction amounts to judicial indiscipline – Orders of quasi-judicial authorities must maintain consistency unless validly reviewed or set aside by a higher court [Paras 5(i), 7-9].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The impugned orders dated 05.10.2021 and 15.06.2023 passed by the Competent Authority and the High Court respectively are quashed – Liberty is granted to the Respondent-Society to approach the Competent Authority afresh only after resolving legal complications before a competent civil court – Appeal stands allowed [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law - Summoning of Additional Accused – Scope of Section 319 Cr. PC – Satisfaction beyond Prima Facie – Summoning Restored – The Sessions Judge allowed the appellant’s application under Section 319 Cr. PC to summon Rajesh Kumar and Neeraj as additional accused based on PW-1’s evidence alleging their direct involvement – The High Court reversed the order, citing lack of corroboration from medical evidence and police investigation reports – The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Judge’s satisfaction was higher than prima facie and consistent with settled law under Hardeep Singh’s case – Police reports alone cannot conclusively negate involvement when direct evidence exists – Held: High Court’s interference unwarranted; Sessions Judge’s order restored [Paras 16-19].

Section 319 Cr. PC – Nature of Power – Discretion Not Mechanical – Application Restored – Power under Section 319 is discretionary and should not be exercised mechanically but requires satisfaction higher than prima facie but below proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt – The High Court overlooked the principle that the trial court’s discretion should not be lightly interfered with unless perverse – Held: The Sessions Judge had correctly exercised discretion and reached a plausible conclusion – Appeal allowed [Paras 17-19].

Decision – High Court Order Set Aside – Sessions Judge Order Restored – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the order of the Sessions Judge summoning Rajesh and Neeraj to face trial along with Mukesh – Trial directed to proceed expeditiously [Paras 19-21].

Service Law – Pay Scale Dispute – Assistant Professors – Appellant-Society managing private engineering colleges challenged the Bombay High Court's order granting 6th Central Pay Commission benefits to Respondent-teachers – The High Court directed re-designation of certain teachers as Associate Professors with pay band Rs. 37,400-67,000 and AGP Rs. 9,000 – Appellant contended Respondents lacked the essential Ph.D. qualification prescribed by AICTE post 15.03.2000 – Held: Teachers appointed prior to 15.03.2000, when Ph.D. was not mandatory, are entitled to benefits – Teachers appointed after 15.03.2000 without Ph.D. or who failed to acquire it within 7 years are not entitled [Paras 2, 16, 17, 27, 28].

AICTE Regulations – Qualification Requirements – AICTE, as the statutory body under the 1987 Act, has authority to prescribe qualifications – Notifications of 2000, 2005, and 2010 make Ph.D. mandatory for Assistant Professors appointed after 15.03.2000 – Teachers who fail to acquire Ph.D. within 7 years face stoppage of increments and ineligibility for higher pay scales – 2016 Clarification merely reiterated existing rules, did not relax them – Supreme Court upheld AICTE’s standards as neither arbitrary nor unreasonable [Paras 4-12, 18-24].

Judicial Review – Limits – Supreme Court reiterated that Courts should defer to the expertise of statutory academic bodies like AICTE unless the prescribed qualifications are arbitrary or unlawful – The distinction between teachers with and without Ph.D. is reasonable and serves to maintain academic standards – Teachers who later obtain Ph.D. can seek benefits prospectively upon compliance [Paras 25, 26, 29].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Teachers appointed prior to 15.03.2000 and one teacher who later acquired Ph.D. entitled to benefits – Others denied – Higher pay scale with 7.5% interest on arrears to be paid within 4 weeks or interest to rise to 15% – Review petitions before High Court to be decided considering this judgment [Paras 28-31].

Service Law - Departmental Proceedings – Quasi-Judicial Function – Judges Protection Act – Protection granted – Appellant acted in quasi-judicial capacity as Tehsildar under Section 57(2) of the MP Land Revenue Code – No allegations of mala fide, extraneous consideration, bribery, or corruption – Mere irregularity or erroneous decision without dishonest intent not actionable departmentally – Held: The departmental proceedings are barred by the Judges Protection Act [Paras 5-17].

Delay in Disciplinary Action – 14 years delay unjustified – Proceedings quashed – No explanation for inordinate delay in issuance of chargesheet – Such delay violates principles of natural justice and causes prejudice – Held: Disciplinary proceedings quashed on the ground of delay alone [Paras 17-18].

K.K. Dhawan Principles – Not attracted – The exceptions laid down in Union of India v.

K.K. Dhawan (1993) regarding when disciplinary action may be initiated against officers discharging quasi-judicial functions not applicable – No evidence of misconduct beyond an erroneous order – Held: Disciplinary proceedings unsustainable [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Chargesheet and departmental proceedings quashed – Division Bench judgment set aside – Single Judge’s judgment restored – No order as to costs [Paras 19-21].

Civil Law - Interest – Commercial Transaction – Share Valuation Dispute – Interest Entitlement – Appellants sought higher interest on the enhanced share valuation in a transaction involving compulsory acquisition by the State – High Court restricted interest to 5% simple interest considering the State's burden – Held: The transaction is commercial in nature, entitling appellants to reasonable compensation for the time value of money – Absence of an agreement does not bar the Court from awarding interest under Section 34 CPC – Courts have discretion to balance equities in determining rate of interest [Paras 11-17].

Award of Interest – Reasonableness – Article 14 & Unconscionable Transactions – Supreme Court recognized that delayed payments over five decades justifies reasonable compensation – While rejecting the appellant's claim for interest @15%-18% with monthly/quarterly rests as excessive, the Court held that a simple interest of 6% per annum from 08.07.1975 till the decree and 9% per annum from the decree till realization will meet the ends of justice – Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order accordingly – Decree clarified to avoid punitive impact on the State but uphold equitable restitution [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Impugned orders of the High Court modified – Appellants entitled to simple interest @6% p.a. from 08.07.1975 till the date of decree and @9% p.a. from the date of decree till the realization of the amount – Payment to be made within two months, failing which interest liability shall continue – No costs – Connected miscellaneous applications disposed of [Para 18].