Criminal Law – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of FIR & criminal proceedings – High Court’s powers are not limited by bar under Section 320 CrPC – Where matrimonial disputes are settled amicably, FIR or complaint under Sections 498A/406 IPC can be quashed to secure ends of justice – Hyper-technical view would defeat purpose of law meant to protect women [Paras 2, 8, 14–15].

Matrimonial Disputes – Settlement between husband and wife – FIR filed by wife under Sections 498A/406 IPC – Parties settled disputes, obtained mutual divorce, wife supported quashing – Continuance of prosecution held unnecessary – Chances of conviction bleak once complainant withdraws allegations – Duty of courts to encourage genuine matrimonial settlements [Paras 3, 10–13].

Interpretation of Precedent – Bhajan Lal case – Seven illustrative categories not exhaustive; High Court erred in treating them as rigid – Madhu Limaye not authority for limiting inherent powers; concerned with bar on revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(2) – Surendra Nath Mohanty correctly held compounding impermissible in non-compoundable offences, but that principle distinct from power of quashing under Section 482 [Paras 5–9].

Constitutional Law – Articles 226 and 227 – High Courts retain plenary powers to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice – Section 482 CrPC read harmoniously with constitutional mandate [Paras 2, 6, 10].

Final Decision – Appeals allowed – Judgment of High Court set aside – FIR under Sections 498A/406 IPC quashed in exercise of inherent powers [Paras 15–16].

Land Acquisition – Alleged “Malice in Law” – Articles 136/226; LA Act Ss. 4(1), 6, 17(4) – Acquisition Upheld – High Court quashed notifications holding the State acted to defeat eviction decrees; Supreme Court holds the State’s eminent domain to secure continuance of a long-running public purpose (school since 1954) is distinct from its status as tenant – Resort to acquisition after eviction orders is a reasonable, proximate response to serve public purpose, not colourable exercise – Appeals allowed; HC orders set aside; parties to bear own costs [Paras 2-7, 14-17, 20-24].

Malice in Law – Meaning and Application – “Legal malice” is action without lawful excuse/for an unauthorised purpose – When attributed to State, it denotes oblique purpose, not personal spite – Acquisition is mala fide only if the purpose is a camouflage or foreign to the Act – Here, the purpose (continuing a school in central Hyderabad) remained genuine; timing post-eviction does not negate public purpose [Paras 11-13, 16-17, 21].

Public Purpose vs. Tenant Status – Distinct Capacities – State’s rights/liabilities as tenant under rent law do not curtail sovereign eminent domain – Eviction orders and undertaking to vacate supplied proximate cause to acquire; once acquired, State could reconstruct/repair to meet educational needs – Not a colourable exercise [Paras 15-17, 20].

Norms for School Buildings – Subsequent/Planning Norms – Non-conformity with later Urban Development/Government norms (1998) does not vitiate acquisition of an existing school site; such norms primarily guide new developments, not existing buildings serving public purpose since 1954 [Paras 18-19].

Interim Shift to Alternative Premises – No Mootness – Temporary shifting to avoid hazards of a dilapidated structure does not extinguish public purpose or invalidate acquisition; reconsideration by State not warranted on that basis [Paras 22-23].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Acquisition notifications and proceedings sustained; High Court’s quashing orders set aside; no order as to costs [Paras 24-25].

Service Law – Inter se Seniority – Haryana Judicial Service – Seniority to be determined on basis of merit position in select list and not on date of joining – Rules of 1951 emphasize merit – Long-standing practice of Punjab & Haryana High Court to follow merit upheld – Seniority not a fundamental right but a civil right [Paras 23–24, 48–49].

Reservation – Roster Points – Not determinative of seniority – Roster system meant only for ensuring adequate representation in appointments – Cannot be extended to fixation of seniority – Affirmative action under Article 16(4) does not alter seniority principle – Decision in P.S. Ghalaut v. State of Haryana not good law – Ajit Singh (II) and R.K. Sabharwal affirmed [Paras 33–39].

Appointments – Delay in appointment due to litigation – Candidates higher in merit deprived of timely appointment – Appointed later pursuant to court orders – Such candidates entitled to seniority as per original merit list – They should not suffer loss of seniority for no fault of theirs [Paras 49–51].

Practice – Settled Seniority – Once seniority list is settled and officers promoted, position should not be unsettled belatedly – Representations made years after publication of list not sustainable – Justice, equity, and long-standing practice favour adherence to merit-based seniority [Paras 53–54].

Final Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s decision upheld – Seniority to be reckoned strictly as per order of merit in select list, not date of joining [Para 54].

Land Acquisition – Section 5A Inquiry – Industrial Focal Point – Acquisition Upheld – Appellants alleged no personal hearing in Section 5A proceedings – Collector had considered objections and released about 6 acres, acquiring only 1.5 acres – This showed objections were evaluated – Absence of record of personal hearing did not vitiate acquisition – Writ filed belatedly after Section 6 declaration and award – No interference warranted [Paras 3-6].

Mandatory Nature of Section 5A – Principles – While personal hearing under Section 5A is mandatory in general (Shyam Nandan Prasad; Shri Mandir Sita Ramji; Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad), compliance established here by partial acceptance of objections – No prejudice caused – Acquisition valid [Paras 3-6].

Delay and Acquiescence – Section 6 declaration made on 18.03.1992; Award on 15.03.1994 – Writ petition filed on 12.04.1994 after proceedings culminated – Conduct showed lack of genuine grievance – Relief barred [Para 6].

Exemption Claim – Agricultural Land – Not Sustainable – In CA 67/1998, appellants failed to object in time – Land already surrounded by other acquired plots and possession handed to third parties for industry – Exclusion not justified – High Court’s rejection upheld [Para 7].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Acquisition sustained – No order as to costs [Para 8].

Sales Tax – Anti-Evasion Scheme – Sections 2(6), 11(1) Explanation, 11(5), 11(7)-(8), 11(10)-(12), 14(4) WBST Act, 1994 and Rules 172-174, 188, 189 with Forms 28 & 31 – Upheld – State’s competence under Entry 54 List II to enact incidental safeguards affirmed – Explanation to s.11(1) is a valid rebuttable presumption (Evidence Act s.4) – “Amount in advance/security” under s.11(7)-(8) is a collection safeguard, not advance tax – Interception/detention, seizure, penalty and auction are consequential and valid – Tribunal’s orders set aside – Civil Appeals allowed – No costs [Paras 1-3, 9, 12-17, 18-25, 27-31, 33-34].

Legislative Competence – Entry 54 List II – Incidental/ancillary anti-evasion measures – Valid – Power to cast obligations on transporters and warehouse owners and prescribe machinery to secure tax collection – Incidental overlap permissible – Followed/Applied: Nand Lal; Balaji; Khyerbari; Tripura Goods Transport; D.P. Metals [Paras 18-24].

Definition – “Casual Trader” – Section 2(6) including transporters/warehouse lessees – Valid – Disclosure of consignor/consignee particulars and carriage of invoice/challan/consignment note are reasonable and within knowledge/control – Tribunal’s suspension for want of machinery unsustainable – Operation restored [Paras 5-9].

Rebuttable Presumption – Section 11(1) Explanation – Disposal of goods deemed sale unless proved otherwise – Constitutionally valid – Does not expand Article 366(29-A) – Merely shifts evidential burden upon proof of disposal – Supported by Sodhi Transport (U.P. s.28B) – Tribunal reversed [Paras 12-13].

Interception/Detention & Documentation – Section 11(5) – Valid – Duty to stop on interception and produce invoice/challan/transport receipt/consignment note and furnish consignor/consignee details – Immediate release if not a casual trader – Limited detention (ordinarily ≤ 24 hours) if casual-trader involvement suspected [Paras 15-16].

Amount-in-Advance / Security – Sections 11(7)-(8) – Not an advance tax – Quantum tied to potential liability with reasons recorded – Adjustment against tax and refund mechanism provided – Reasonable nexus to securing tax [Paras 16-17]

Seizure, Penalty, Auction – Sections 11(10)-(12) – Consequential to valid scheme – Seizure on contravention/non-compliance with s.11(4)-(8) – Penalty up to 25% after hearing – Auction of seized goods on default – Stand or fall with s.11(5), (7)-(8) – Upheld [Paras 17, 25].

Purchases by Casual Trader – Section 14(4) – Vehicle detention & document verification on purchase side – Mirrors s.11 safeguards – Limited detention for assessment/recovery – Anti-evasion override of s.46 – Valid [Paras 26-27].

Rules & Forms – West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 – Rules 172, 173, 174, 188 and Forms 28, 31 – Valid as consequential to Act’s validity – Tribunal’s invalidation set aside; Form 32 remains valid [Paras 28-29].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Tribunal’s orders set aside – Impugned statutory provisions and rules upheld as intra vires – No order as to costs [Paras 30-31, 33-34].

Recruitment to Primary Teacher Posts – Eligibility of B.Ed. Candidates – Appeal Dismissed – Advertisement required Teacher Training Certificate (TTC) as qualification – B.Ed. candidates claimed equivalence or higher qualification and relied on past practice of their appointment – Supreme Court held B.Ed. not prescribed in advertisement, nor equivalent to TTC – B.Ed. course designed for higher classes, TTC for primary level – Recruitment must be strictly as per rules and advertisement, past deviation cannot validate illegality – Exclusion of B.Ed. candidates upheld – Appeal dismissed, no costs [Paras 2-10].

B.Ed. vs. TTC – Distinct Courses – B.Ed. provides training for teaching higher classes – TTC equips candidates with specialized training for teaching children at primary level – No equivalence or parity – B.Ed. cannot be treated as higher qualification to TTC [Paras 4-5, 8].

Recruitment Rules – Strict Compliance – Public employment to be governed strictly by rules and advertisement – Deviation permits ineligible candidates and denies opportunity to eligible ones – Past practice of appointing B.Ed. candidates due to paucity of TTC candidates cannot be continued [Paras 6, 8].

Precedent Distinguished – N. Suresh Nathan vs. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 584 Supp – Distinguished as concerning computation of service period for promotions of diploma engineers – Not applicable to determination of prescribed academic qualifications for recruitment [Para 9].

Decision – B.Ed. candidates held ineligible for advertised vacancies of primary teachers – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 10].

Service Law - Departmental and Criminal Proceedings – Double Jeopardy – Article 20(2) of the Constitution – Appeal Allowed – Respondent, a bus driver, was penalised departmentally with reduction in pay for rash and negligent driving that caused a fatal accident and financial loss to the department – Subsequently, upon conviction under Section 304A IPC, he was dismissed from service – High Court set aside the dismissal citing double jeopardy under Article 20(2) – Held: The two actions were based on separate and distinct causes – Departmental punishment addressed financial and disciplinary consequences while dismissal followed judicial conviction – No violation of Article 20(2) – High Court’s order unsustainable [Paras 2, 4, 7].

Haryana Civil Services Rules – Rule 7(1) and 7(2)(b) – Distinction Between Departmental Penalty and Dismissal Upon Conviction – Held: First punishment was imposed after departmental enquiry under Rule 7(1) for misconduct causing loss – Second punishment was under Rule 7(2)(b) following conviction, for which no separate enquiry was required – Rules permit distinct actions based on separate grounds – Termination legally valid [Paras 5-6].

Jurisdiction of High Court – Interference with Concurrent Findings – Error in Law – Both trial and appellate courts upheld termination – High Court erred in reversing these findings based solely on misapplication of constitutional protection against double jeopardy – Held: Departmental and criminal actions cannot be equated for the purpose of Article 20(2) – High Court committed serious error [Paras 3-4, 7].

Final Decision – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Orders of trial court and first appellate court restored – No order as to costs [Para 7].

Service Law – Dismissal without Enquiry – Appeal Partly Allowed – Probationary employee dismissed for alleged assault and misconduct – enquiry dispensed with under Rule 30 citing impracticability – Delhi High Court quashed dismissal holding reasons mala fide – Supreme Court held High Court erred in finding mala fides without specific pleadings or impleadment – equally, grounds for dispensing with enquiry not properly established – given long passage of time and employer’s plea of loss of confidence, reinstatement not directed – dismissal upheld with compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs in full and final settlement – Appeal disposed of [Paras 2-34].

Judicial Review – Scope – Administrative discretion to dispense with enquiry under Rule 30 must be exercised bona fide and on relevant material – Courts cannot substitute their view for that of disciplinary authority – limited judicial review permissible on grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety – bald allegations of mala fides insufficient [Paras 12-16, 23-24].

Mala Fides – Heavy Burden of Proof – Allegations of victimisation and mala fides require specific pleadings and proof of high order – vague assertions not enough – Courts slow to draw inferences against public authorities absent clear evidence [Paras 23-24].

Loss of Confidence – Misconduct affecting reputation and discipline – Employer entitled to act against employee whose acts undermine discipline, character or reputation – Even union activity cannot justify violence or intimidation – Plea of loss of confidence legitimate where misconduct not disbelieved [Paras 27-30].

Back Wages – Discretionary Relief – Reinstatement does not automatically entail full back wages – Payment of Rs. 15 lakhs (including Rs. 3 lakhs earlier paid) directed as full and final settlement considering time lapse and loss of confidence – Tribunal/ Court must exercise discretion judicially, not mechanically grant full wages [Paras 31-33].

Decision – Dismissal order upheld – Respondent not reinstated – Compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs directed as final settlement – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Para 34].

Service Law – Suppression of Material Facts – Termination Justified – False Declaration in Attestation Form – Respondent, selected as a Physical Education Teacher, concealed information regarding pending criminal case in attestation form – Despite claim of Hindi medium education, held: False statement made knowingly – Certificate in attestation form confirms understanding and affirmation of correctness – High Court erred in setting aside Tribunal’s order upholding dismissal [Paras 1–3, 6–12].

Recruitment – Verification of Character and Antecedents – Relevance of Pending Criminal Case – Purpose of columns 12 and 13 in attestation form is to assess character at the time of appointment – Even if criminal case was later withdrawn or minor, non-disclosure at time of joining is fatal – Such suppression undermines trust and integrity expected of a teacher [Paras 10–12].

Education Sector – Role of Teachers – Higher Standards of Integrity Expected – Held: Conduct and antecedents of a teacher directly influence impressionable students – Appointing authority rightly exercised discretion to terminate services for breach of trust – Tribunal’s view affirmed, High Court’s interference unwarranted [Paras 12].

Judicial Precedents – Misapplication by High Court – Bank of Baroda Case Misused – High Court wrongly relied on Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Presiding Officer despite Supreme Court’s express direction that it should not be treated as precedent – Supreme Court reiterates that the earlier ruling was confined to its own facts [Paras 13–14].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Termination Order Restored – Supreme Court sets aside High Court’s judgment – Upholds Tribunal’s decision sustaining termination of service due to false declaration in attestation form [Paras 15–16].