Service Law – Ad Hoc Service – Not Countable for Seniority and Pay Fixation – Rule Position Applied - Respondents were appointed as Horticulture Inspectors on ad hoc basis and later regularised – High Court directed inclusion of ad hoc service for pay fixation, seniority, and selection grade benefits – Supreme Court held that ad hoc service cannot be counted for such benefits as per precedent in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Assn. – Regular service alone to be considered [Paras 2–4].

Seniority and Pay Fixation – Ad Hoc Appointments – Excluded from Proficiency Step-Up Scheme - For purposes of grant of 8/18-year pay scale under the proficiency step-up scheme, only regular service is relevant – Ad hoc service rendered prior to regularisation is to be excluded – High Court judgment allowing benefits on basis of ad hoc service set aside [Paras 2–4].

Relief – No Recovery of Excess Pay – Financial Relief Protected - While setting aside the High Court's judgment, Court clarified that any excess amount already drawn by the employees based on higher scale (due to ad hoc service inclusion) shall not be recovered – However, cadre seniority and all consequential benefits to align with ruling [Para 5].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Order Set Aside – Ad hoc service excluded from benefit computation – No recovery of excess payment – No costs [Paras 4–5].

Criminal Law – TIP - Identification Evidence – Delay in Court Identification – Section 9 of Evidence Act – Conviction Upheld – Appellant convicted for terrorist attack resulting in multiple deaths and injuries – Main challenge was to reliability of in-court identification by PW37 and PW38 after a lapse of 7–8 years – No test identification parade held due to appellant’s refusal to participate – Held: Delay in trial and identification not fatal – Witnesses had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused during the incident and identified him in open court from among 14 persons – Their evidence was cogent, consistent and trustworthy – Refusal to participate in test parade was at accused’s own risk [Paras 1–14].

Identification Parade – Refusal by Accused – Legal Consequence – Accused Daya Singh refused to participate in identification parade citing prior exposure to witnesses – Held: Accused's refusal to cooperate with identification process cannot invalidate later dock identification if otherwise reliable – No adverse inference against prosecution for not conducting parade due to refusal – Independent witness (Tehsildar) corroborated refusal of the accused to join identification parade [Paras 7, 13].

Confessional Statement – Inadmissibility – TADA Confession Rejected – Confessional statement recorded by DIG under TADA not relied upon by Designated Court – Held: Confession not voluntary, proper procedures not followed – Statement rightly discarded by trial court – Conviction based solely on eyewitness testimony and identification [Para 8].

Eye-Witness Testimony – Credibility of Injured Witnesses – Conviction Sustained – PW37 and PW38 were injured eyewitnesses whose close family members were killed during the attack – Court held their presence and account natural and trustworthy – Minor inconsistencies in identification process not sufficient to discredit overall testimony – Other injured witnesses’ failure to identify accused does not render PW37 and PW38's testimony unreliable [Paras 5, 6, 14].

Decision – Conviction Affirmed – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Daya Singh under Sections 302/34 IPC, 307/34 IPC, and Section 5 of the TADA Act – Sentences to run concurrently – Appeal by State against acquittal of co-accused also dismissed – No interference warranted with the judgment of the Designated Court [Final Para].

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal of Wife – Conviction of Paramour and Accomplice – Extramarital affair led to the murder of Army personnel by his wife (A1) and her paramour (A2) with help of associates (A3, A4) – Trial court convicted A1 and A2 and acquitted A3 and A4 – High Court convicted A3 and A4 as well – Supreme Court set aside conviction of A1 due to inadmissibility of confessional statement and lack of corroborative evidence – Held: Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof – Conviction of A2 and A3 upheld [Paras 1-2, 11, 15-17, 24-26, 41]

Confessional Statement – Admissibility – Section 164 CrPC – A4 made a confessional statement (Exhibit P-77) before a Magistrate – Statement not signed by A4 – Magistrate failed to comply with mandatory provisions of Section 164(4) CrPC – Held: Non-compliance with Section 164(4) is fatal – Confession inadmissible – Cannot be relied upon either as judicial or extra-judicial confession – Magistrate acted in casual manner – Legal and procedural lapses deprived A1 of fair trial protections [Paras 17-26]

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Wife (A1) was last seen with the deceased – Held: Mere presence in matrimonial home does not incriminate her – No other circumstances linking her directly to murder – In absence of admissible confession and corroborative evidence, benefit of doubt must be given – Suspicion cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 15-16, 26]

Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction of A2 and A3 – Proven circumstances include illicit relationship, motive, travel to crime scene, presence near victim’s house, time of murder, recovery of bloodstained clothes and victim’s jewellery – Blood group analysis matched deceased’s blood – Accused failed to explain incriminating evidence – Held: Circumstantial chain complete – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC upheld [Paras 27, 29-40]

Investigation – Lapses – No charge of criminal conspiracy framed – Investigating agency failed to establish conspiracy angle – Medical examination of A1 conducted indicating prosecution’s own doubts about her role – Held: Lapses contributed to lack of legal proof against A1 [Paras 16, 26]

Decision: Appeal of A1 allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – She to be released if not wanted in any other case – Appeals of A2 and A3 dismissed – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC and life imprisonment upheld [Para 41]

Education Law - Admission Policy – Classification between Service and Non-Service Candidates – Article 15(4) and 16(4) Not Attracted – Allocation Upheld - Tamil Nadu Government policy bifurcating postgraduate/super-speciality medical seats equally between service and non-service candidates was challenged – Supreme Court held such classification is permissible as a matter of policy and does not attract the rigours of constitutional reservations under Articles 15(4) or 16(4) – Fixation of quota between two classes based on source of recruitment is valid – Full Bench of High Court rightly upheld the allocation [Paras 3, 8–12].

Open Quota – Not Equivalent to General Merit – Open Quota Exclusively for Non-Service Candidates – Valid Classification - Supreme Court rejected the contention that “open quota” should be available to all, including service candidates – Held: Open quota was expressly limited to non-service candidates under the 1999 prospectus, unlike the 1998 scheme – In-service candidates already enjoyed a 50% exclusive quota and could not claim additional share under open quota [Paras 4, 10–11].

Merit-Based Selection – Distinction from Communal Reservation – No Overlap – Misapplication of Reservation Principles Rejected - Court clarified that quota-based classifications between service and non-service candidates cannot be equated with communal or backward class reservations – Doctrine of merging reserved category merit candidates into general category seats does not apply here – Classification based on employment source serves different constitutional purpose [Paras 8, 10, 12].

Final Decision – Appeals and Writ Petition Dismissed – Full Bench Judgment Affirmed – Scheme allocating 50% seats to each category upheld as valid classification – No interference warranted [Para 12–13].

Labour Law - Employment Misconduct – Bus Conductor – Proven Short-Charging – Dismissal Justified - The respondent, a conductor, issued tickets of ₹1.75 while collecting ₹2.25 from 35 passengers – Labour Court found charge proved but reinstated with full back wages – Supreme Court held such short-charging was either dishonest or grossly negligent, amounting to breach of fiduciary duty – Misplaced sympathy by Labour Court deprecated – Dismissal should not have been interfered with [Paras 2, 4–6].

Fiduciary Responsibility – Role of Bus Conductor – Gross Misconduct – Dishonesty or Negligence - Conductors are expected to act with utmost integrity while handling fare – Issuance of lower value tickets while collecting correct fare indicates clear intention to misappropriate or recklessly disregards employer’s financial interests – Acts held as incompatible with continued employment [Paras 5–6].

Judicial Discretion – Labour Court's Relief – Misplaced Sympathy Criticised – Labour Court’s order for reinstatement with back wages reversed – Supreme Court noted that even if reinstatement stood due to superannuation, back wages were not justified in such misconduct cases – Reinstatement upheld only for retiral benefits, no back wages to be paid [Paras 6–8].

Final Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Order of reinstatement maintained due to superannuation – No entitlement to back wages – Respondent entitled only to retiral benefits [Para 7–8].

Probation and Corruption Offence – Applicability of Probation Act – Section 18, J&K Prevention of Corruption Act – Probation Denied - The High Court upheld the conviction for misappropriation and forgery under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Ranbir Penal Code, yet extended benefit under the J&K Probation of Offenders Act – Held: The benefit was impermissible as Section 18 expressly excludes its application to offences under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – High Court judgment granting probation set aside [Paras 3, 9–11].

Minimum Sentence – Scope of Reduction – Section 5(2), J&K Prevention of Corruption Act – Sentence Reduced - Statute prescribes a minimum sentence of one year, reducible to six months only for special reasons – Court held that reasons like superannuation, prolonged trial or family responsibilities are not “special reasons” by themselves – However, considering the totality of facts, including restitution of funds and departmental punishment, sentence reduced to six months R.I. with fine reduced to ₹5,000 – Custodial sentence to be served concurrently for all offences [Paras 13–18].

Corruption by Public Servant – Tampering and Misappropriation – Conviction Affirmed - Accused, while posted as cashier, misappropriated government funds by manipulating transport records and forged entries in account books – Evidence substantiated the offence – Trial and High Court both upheld conviction – No challenge to findings of guilt – Conviction confirmed [Paras 4–6, 9].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's order granting probation set aside – Trial Court’s conviction restored – Sentence reduced under proviso to Section 5(2) – Accused to serve 6 months imprisonment and pay fine of ₹5,000 or undergo default sentence as per Trial Court’s order [Para 18].

Criminal Law – NDPS Offence – Conviction Based on Confession – Acquittal – Appellant convicted for possession of narcotic substance based on his confessional statement to Superintendent of Excise and co-accused’s statement – Held: Excise Officers under Bihar & Orissa Excise Act are “police officers” within meaning of Section 25 of Evidence Act – Confession to them inadmissible – Co-accused’s statement cannot be sole basis of conviction – Conviction unsustainable – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-2, 11].

Confessional Statement – Admissibility – Section 25 Evidence Act – Section 78 Bihar & Orissa Excise Act – Statement of accused made to Superintendent of Excise inadmissible – Court relied on Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar holding Excise Officers under 1915 Act are police officers – Distinguished from Badku Joti Savant (5-Judge Bench) and Raj Kumar Karwal which concerned Central Excise/DRI officers – Held: Confession to Excise Officers under 1915 Act inadmissible in law [Paras 11-17].

Evidence – Statement of Co-Accused – Statement of co-accused that appellant was owner of contraband cannot form sole basis of conviction – Requires independent corroboration – In absence of admissible confession, residue of evidence insufficient for conviction under NDPS Act [Paras 11, 17].

Precedents – Application – Raja Ram Jaiswal applied – Excise Officers under Bihar & Orissa Excise Act treated as police officers for Section 25 Evidence Act – Badku Joti Savant and Raj Kumar Karwal distinguished as involving Central Excise and DRI officers – Pon Adithan and Francis De Costa held not applicable [Paras 11-17].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Fine, if paid, to be refunded [Final Para].

TADA – Conviction under Section 3(3) in absence of conviction under Section 3(2) – Sustainable – It is not necessary for someone to be convicted under Section 3(2) for conviction under Section 3(3) – Section 3(3) criminalizes preparatory acts, abetment, and conspiracy relating to terrorist acts, which are independent offences – Therefore, conviction under Section 3(3) upheld despite absence of conviction under Section 3(2) [Paras 16-17].

TADA – Admissibility of Confessional Statements – Confessions recorded by police officers under Section 15 are admissible – The procedural lapses such as delay in presenting the accused before the Magistrate or lack of compliance with Kartar Singh guidelines do not render the confessions inadmissible if otherwise found voluntary – Rule 15 of the TADA Rules satisfied – Statements considered substantive evidence [Paras 18-21].

TADA – Confessions as Substantive Evidence – Confessional statements of accused found to be detailed, self-incriminatory, and corroborated by independent evidence – Confessions valid even though recorded during police custody – Confessions also usable against co-accused if tried jointly – Accused failed to raise coercion claims before the Magistrate – Hence, confessions accepted [Paras 18-22].

TADA – Terrorist Conspiracy – Evidence corroborating confessional statements – Movements of accused within India and abroad, creation of hideouts, use of forged documents and vehicles, seizure of arms and explosives – All corroborated by documentary and witness evidence – Wide-spread transnational conspiracy involving ISI agents and local collaborators established [Paras 4-10, 24-28].

Recovery of Arms – Recovery based on information from accused during interrogation – Arms and explosives recovered from specific premises used as hideouts – Recovery corroborates confession – Noted as significant corroborative evidence [Paras 24-26].

Use of Hotels and Fake Identities – Travel records, hotel stays, and aliases verified by prosecution witnesses – Strengthens confession of involvement in subversive activities – Shows organized planning by accused [Paras 27-28].

Confession of Co-Accused – Held usable under TADA – Not necessary for confession to be corroborated in all material particulars – Can be relied upon if found truthful and voluntary – Judged alongside substantive evidence [Paras 21-22].

Appeals Dismissed – Conviction under TADA and allied provisions upheld – Confessions admissible and corroborated – Legal requirements under TADA fulfilled – Sentences affirmed [Final Para].

Facts:

The case involves judicial officers challenging the decision not to extend their superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years. They argued that a prior Supreme Court decision had effectively increased the retirement age to 60 years. The officers contended that the High Court's order was arbitrary, based on no material, and hence, vitiated.

Issues:

Whether the previous Supreme Court decision automatically extended the retirement age of judicial officers to 60 years.

Whether the High Court's decision to deny the extension was arbitrary or based on no material.

Held:

The judgment clarified that the earlier Supreme Court decision did not automatically extend the retirement age but conferred it as a benefit subject to an evaluation of the officers' utility. No automatic right exists for judicial officers to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. It is a benefit subject to evaluation by the respective High Courts.

The extension of the superannuation age is contingent on an evaluation of the officers' performance and utility. An Evaluation Committee, presided over by the Chief Justice and consisting of eight judges, assessed the performance of the petitioners. The committee formed the opinion that the petitioners lacked potential for continued useful service.

The term "compulsory retirement" is not apt for cases like these. The officers were not granted the benefit of an extended retirement age, nor were they being retired prematurely. Instead, they were allowed to retire at the age specified by the existing service rules, which is not a penalty.

Article 235 of the Indian Constitution vests administrative and disciplinary control over the district judiciary, including subordinate judiciary, in the High Court. This provision safeguards judicial independence and ensures High Court's control over subordinate courts.

Ongoing assessments of the performance of judicial officers, including regular inspections and timely entries in service records, are vital. Judicial officers should have the opportunity to provide representations in case of adverse entries in their records.