Service Law - Departmental Enquiry – Charge of Forgery – Fabrication of Medical Certificate – Appellant dismissed for allegedly submitting fabricated medical certificate to justify absence – Doctor admitted that appellant consulted him and received tablets – Letterhead and rubber stamp belonged to doctor – Disputed and undisputed signatures not conclusively compared – No handwriting expert consulted – Held: Finding of fabrication perverse and based on no credible evidence – Charge of forgery not proved [Paras 29–36, 39–40].

Judicial Review – Disciplinary Proceedings – Scope of Interference – Though Court does not sit as appellate authority, interference warranted where findings are perverse or based on no evidence – If on available material no reasonable person could have reached such conclusion, writ court and Supreme Court can interfere – Parameters reiterated [Paras 43].

Graver the Charge – Greater the Caution – Allegation of forgery entails serious civil consequences including mandatory dismissal under Rules – In case of fully handwritten disputed document, prudence required verification of disputed and admitted signatures and reference to handwriting expert – Failure to adopt such course vitiates finding [Paras 32–36].

Natural Justice – Preliminary Statement of Doctor – Statement initially recorded behind back of appellant – Though Court refrained from ruling on validity of preliminary inquiry, emphasised need for fair play in disciplinary proceedings involving livelihood – Investigations must be consistent with gravity of consequences [Paras 36, 41].

Unauthorized Absence – Minor Lapse – Delay of 13 days in submitting explanation not unreasonable – Salary for period already deducted – First charge intrinsically linked with second and cannot independently sustain major penalty of dismissal [Paras 28, 41].

Perverse Findings – “No Evidence” Principle – Rubber stamp on disputed certificate identical to acknowledged documents – Undisputed signatures themselves not identical though broadly similar – In absence of conclusive material, acceptance of doctor’s denial without expert verification renders finding unsustainable [Paras 37–40].

Punishment – Dismissal from Service – Once core charge of forgery not established, mandatory dismissal clause under Rule 9(x) proviso not attracted – Previous minor penalty irrelevant when present charges fail [Paras 44].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court dated 12.02.2024 in W.P. No. 40486 of 2022 set aside – Order of dismissal dated 13.11.2018 and appellate order dated 08.01.2021 quashed – Appellant directed to be reinstated forthwith with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and emoluments – Compliance directed within three weeks – No order as to costs.

Bail – Annulment of Bail Order – Suppression of Criminal Antecedents – Organised Educational Fraud – Accused allegedly fabricated and used forged LL.B. degree to project himself as advocate and appeared before Courts – High Court granted bail relying on disputed documents forming subject matter of prosecution and ignored categorical communications from University denying affiliation and issuance of degree – Multiple FIRs across States suppressed – Held: Bail order perverse, vitiated by non-application of mind and non-consideration of material facts – Bail liable to be annulled without waiting for supervening circumstances [Paras 12–19, 23–27, 31–33].

Bail Jurisprudence – Distinction between Appeal against Grant of Bail and Cancellation for Post-Bail Conduct – Appellate Court examines legality and correctness of bail order at inception – Supervening circumstances relevant in cancellation, not in appeal against grant – If order based on irrelevant considerations or ignores gravity, antecedents and societal impact, interference warranted [Paras 14–18].

Criminal Antecedents – Duty of Full and Candid Disclosure – Accused concealed pendency of nine FIRs and made inconsistent statements regarding criminal history and professional status – Suppression of material facts amounts to abuse of process and fraud on Court – Discretionary relief such as bail cannot be secured by concealment – Bail vitiated where grant influenced by incomplete disclosure [Paras 31, 42–44].

Educational Fraud – Impact on Legal Profession and Administration of Justice – Allegations not confined to personal use but indicate systematic racket for fabrication and circulation of forged academic degrees – Impersonation as advocate undermines institutional integrity and public confidence – Existence of family dispute does not dilute gravity of allegations having wider societal ramifications [Paras 22, 25–26, 32].

Transfer of Investigation – Special Agency – Chargesheet Filed – No Exceptional Circumstances – Investigation completed and cognizance taken – No material to show bias, mala fides or involvement of high officials – Transfer to CBI/special agency permissible only in rare and exceptional cases – Prayer declined – Existing directions of Supreme Court regarding verification of law degrees by Bar Council and High-Level Committee noted [Paras 34–41].

Disclosure Framework in Bail Applications – Recommendatory Guidelines – Court emphasised mandatory disclosure of prior bail applications, criminal antecedents, custody details, stage of trial and coercive processes – Suggested structured disclosure format to ensure transparency and prevent abuse of process – Directed circulation of judgment to Registrar Generals of all High Courts for consideration of appropriate Rules [Paras 42–50].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 09.04.2025 set aside – Bail granted to Respondent No. 2 cancelled – Respondent directed to surrender before jurisdictional Court within two weeks – Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously – Prayer for transfer of investigation to special agency rejected – Judgment directed to be circulated to all High Courts and District Judiciary.

Service Law - Payment of Gratuity Act – Definition of “Employee” – Exclusion Clause – Section 2(e) – Employees holding civil posts under Central Government and governed by CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 claimed gratuity under PG Act – Held: Exclusionary limb of Section 2(e) expressly excludes persons holding posts under Central Government and governed by any other Act or Rules providing gratuity – Such employees do not fall within ambit of “employee” under PG Act [Paras 12–12.1, 13].

Jurisdictional Fact – Determination of Status of Establishment – Applicability of PG Act depends on existence of foundational facts – HWP not incorporated under Companies Act, not a PSU, not a Government Company – Functions as adjunct/ancillary unit of Department of Atomic Energy under Atomic Energy Act, 1962 – Held: HWP is part of Central Government establishment – Employees hold civil posts under Union – Jurisdictional fact excludes applicability of PG Act [Paras 10, 13].

Atomic Energy Act – Section 3 – Central Government’s Power – Central Government empowered to carry out atomic energy functions directly or through authority/corporation/government company – Heavy Water Projects Board constituted by Office Memorandum only to manage projects – Does not create separate legal entity – Functional autonomy does not alter character as government department [Paras 4, 12.1, 13].

Interpretation of Statute – “Means” and “Does Not Include” – Coupling of exhaustive definition with express exclusion – Where statute uses “means” and “does not include”, exclusion is strict and categorical – Persons governed by other gratuity-providing Rules stand excluded without further inquiry – Sections 5 (Exemption) and 14 (Overriding Effect) not attracted once exclusion applies [Paras 12–13].

Distinction from MCD Case – Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Dharam Prakash Sharma distinguished – In MCD, employees were of a corporate body which adopted CCS Rules – In present case, employees are Central Government servants ab initio – Ratio not applicable [Paras 11].

Estoppel and Dual Benefits – Employees having accepted gratuity under CCS (Pension) Rules cannot claim parallel benefit under PG Act – Cannot claim benefits under two different statutory regimes for same purpose when specifically excluded [Paras 7(iv), 9].

Decision: Civil Appeals dismissed – Judgment of High Court upheld – Employees of Heavy Water Plant, Department of Atomic Energy, are excluded from definition of “employee” under Section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Sections 5 and 14 of PG Act not attracted – No interference warranted.

Judicial Review – Disposal on Single Point – Duty to Decide All Material Issues – High Court remanded matter to Tribunal solely on issue of authorization of Secretary to initiate disciplinary proceedings – Failed to consider other substantial issues including breach of natural justice and justification of Tribunal’s findings – Held: When multiple issues arise, Court must record findings with reasons on each – Decision focusing only on one decisive point vitiates order – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration [Paras 8–10].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Natural Justice – Denial of Opportunity to Cross-Examine – Appellant contended that cross-examination of main management witness was abruptly closed and opportunity to examine other witnesses denied – Such contention required adjudication by High Court – Failure to examine this plea amounted to fundamental flaw in writ adjudication [Paras 5, 8].

Remand – Improper Exercise of Jurisdiction – High Court quashed Tribunal’s order granting reinstatement and consequential benefits without comprehensive consideration of claims and defences – Supreme Court set aside impugned orders (writ and review) and remanded writ petition for fresh decision on all issues [Paras 4, 10].

Superannuation – Relief – Appellant having attained age of superannuation – Reinstatement no longer viable – Primary issues before High Court on remand: (i) whether Tribunal justified in interfering with disciplinary action and (ii) whether appellant entitled to back wages and retiral benefits if employer’s action found unsustainable [Para 11].

Appellate Guidance – Reasoned Decisions – Comprehensive adjudication ensures clarity, finality and assists appellate review – Fragmented consideration undermines litigants’ rights to complete adjudication [Para 9].

Mediation – Liberty granted to parties to explore mediated settlement notwithstanding absence of settlement before Supreme Court [Para 14].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders dated 05.09.2024 (writ) and 25.09.2024 (review) set aside – Writ petition remanded to Bombay High Court for fresh consideration within four months – All questions of fact and law kept open – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 10, 12–16].

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope and limitations – Suit filed challenging family partition deed dated 31.12.2018 (KBPP) on grounds of coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation and challenging document dated 02.01.2019 as fabricated conciliation award – Trial Court and High Court rejected plaint holding no cause of action and abuse of process – Supreme Court held that plaint disclosed a real and triable cause of action – Allegations of coercion and fraud cannot be peremptorily rejected at threshold – Matters require evidence – Rejection of plaint held erroneous [Paras 27–31].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Conciliation Award – Requirements under Part III (Sections 61–74) – Respondents contended that KBPP read with document dated 02.01.2019 constituted a conciliation award executable as a decree – Court held that serious questions arose as to whether any conciliation in accordance with Part III was ever conducted – Settlement agreement not authenticated by conciliator as required under Section 73 – Alleged award signed only by conciliator and not by parties – Plea of fabricated award raised bona fide and could not be rejected summarily [Paras 21–25].

Family Arrangement / Partition Deed – Challenge on grounds of coercion and inequitable division – Execution of KBPP admitted but promptly revoked by appellants alleging unequal and unfair partition – Court held that in family arrangements, coercion need not be physical or explicit – Subservience to elder family member and misrepresentation can constitute coercion – Validity of partition deed cannot be adjudicated in execution proceedings and requires a properly instituted civil suit [Paras 22, 29–30].

Execution Proceedings – Section 47 CPC – Scope – Objections under Section 47 CPC filed in execution of alleged conciliation award – Supreme Court held that even if execution court examines validity of alleged award, it cannot adjudicate independent challenge to partition deed on grounds of coercion and fraud – Civil suit is the only remedy for such challenge – Simultaneous pendency of suit and Section 47 objections not an abuse of process in facts of case [Paras 30–32].

Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Effect of earlier proceedings – Earlier dismissal of Section 11 petitions, revisions and SLPs did not foreclose remedy of filing civil suit – Liberty expressly reserved by High Court and Supreme Court to work out remedies in accordance with law – Constructive res judicata not attracted – Challenge to KBPP and alleged award held to be still at large [Paras 17–20, 31].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Abuse of Process – Improper application – High Court erred in treating admitted execution of KBPP as waiver of statutory protections under Arbitration Act – No partial waiver of Part III permissible – Findings of abuse of process, suppression and under-valuation unsustainable at threshold – Plaint could not be termed vexatious or illusory [Paras 25–28, 31].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of Trial Court and High Court rejecting plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC set aside – Plaint restored to file of Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli – Suit to be tried along with objections under Section 47 CPC – Liberty reserved to parties to opt for fresh arbitration subject to withdrawal of reliance on KBPP and document dated 02.01.2019 – Observations held to be prima facie and not binding on final adjudication [Paras 32–35].

Public Interest Litigation – Right to Health – Front-of-Pack Labelling – Earlier direction issued to Expert Committee to submit recommendations within three months for amendment of Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations – On review of compliance affidavit, Court found no effective or concrete progress – Exercise undertaken by FSSAI held prima facie unsatisfactory – Matter involves important public health concern – Authority directed to reconsider and revert within four weeks [Paras 1–4, 8, 12].

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Regulatory Domain of FSSAI – Implementation of Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling (INR Star Rating System) – Large stakeholder objections (approx. 14,000 comments) and absence of consensus cited by Authority – Proposal deferred by Food Authority – Court observed that continued consultations and studies cannot indefinitely delay decision-making in matters affecting public health [Paras 4–6, 8].

Front-of-Pack Warning Labels – International Practice – Suggestion by Petitioner for clear warning label on wrapper/packet of pre-packaged foods – Court noted international prevalence of FoPL and directed Authority to consider suggested model seriously – Further response sought within four weeks [Paras 9–11].

Compliance Jurisdiction – Monitoring of Directions – Matter listed to ascertain compliance of earlier order dated 09.04.2025 – Court retained seisin and directed listing after four weeks for further consideration [Paras 2, 12–13].

Decision: Compliance affidavit found unsatisfactory – FSSAI directed to reconsider and revert to Court within four weeks – Matter to be listed accordingly.

Criminal Law – Abuse of Process – Successive FIRs – Article 32 – Petitioners alleged repeated registration of FIRs by Anti-Corruption Bureau to nullify bail orders and keep Petitioner No.1 in custody – Court examined sequence of FIR No.9/2025, FIR No.11/2025, FIR No.20/2025 and FIR No.458/2025 – Noted that subsequent FIRs were not disclosed when interim bail was granted – Held that successive registration prima facie intended to defeat bail and ensure continued custody – Such conduct amounts to abuse of criminal process and violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 – Writ Petition maintainable under Article 32 [Paras 7-12].

Constitution of India – Article 32 – Scope and Maintainability – Power of Supreme Court as “heart and soul” of Constitution reiterated – Court will not refuse to entertain petition where prima facie violation of fundamental rights is established – Existence of alternative remedy of bail before High Court not absolute bar in exceptional circumstances of abuse of process – Intervention warranted to protect personal liberty [Paras 7-8].

Bail – Successive Remand Despite Supreme Court’s Interim Bail – After grant of interim bail on 17.12.2025, petitioner remanded in FIR No.458/2025 and FIR No.20/2025 – Magistrate granted custodial interrogation immediately after Supreme Court order – Conduct of prosecution indicated conscious attempt to keep accused in custody – Held petitioner entitled to be released forthwith on bail in FIR No.20/2025 and FIR No.458/2025 [Paras 10-13].

Cooperation in Investigation – Meaning – Alleged non-cooperation cannot imply obligation to confess to suit prosecution – Cooperation does not mandate self-incriminatory statements – Prosecution’s plea of non-cooperation viewed with caution [Para 11].

Protection from Coercive Action – Petitioner No.2 not arrested – Court directed that no coercive steps be taken subject to cooperation with investigation – Balance struck between investigation and protection of liberty [Para 13].

Criminal Appeal – Bail under PC Act and IPC – Interim bail granted earlier by Supreme Court in FIR No.11/2025 – Chargesheet filed – State raised no objection to confirmation of bail – Held interim bail made absolute subject to conditions imposed by jurisdictional court including appearance and cooperation [Paras 4-7 of Criminal Appeal].

Decision: Writ Petition (Criminal) No.55 of 2026 allowed – Petitioner No.1 directed to be released forthwith on bail in FIR No.20/2025 and FIR No.458/2025 – No coercive steps against Petitioner No.2 subject to cooperation – Rule made absolute.

Criminal Appeal No.815 of 2026 allowed – Interim bail granted on 17.12.2025 in FIR No.11/2025 made absolute subject to terms imposed by jurisdictional court.

Contempt Jurisdiction – Repeated “Consider/Reconsider” Directions – Appeal against interim order listing contempt petition for framing of charges – Multiple writ petitions resulted in successive remand orders directing authorities to “reconsider” claim for salary and creation of posts – Authorities repeatedly rejected claim citing Government policy ban – High Court continued to seek fresh affidavits in contempt proceedings without adjudicating legality of latest order dated 09.05.2025 – Held: In absence of clear and categorical direction establishing right and specific mode of compliance, initiation of contempt proceedings was misplaced – Parties must challenge substantive adverse order rather than invoke contempt for quick relief – Matter remitted with directions [Paras 12–18, 20].

Judicial Practice – “Consider Jurisprudence” – Courts routinely issuing directions to “consider” or “reconsider” claims without determining existence of enforceable right – Such practice termed counterproductive and harmful to system – Relief must follow where right is established – Constitutional remedies are not meant for academic discourse – Courts must issue clear, categorical and enforceable directions specifying manner of compliance – Avoidance or postponement of relief under guise of equity deprecated [Paras 14–16].

Contempt Proceedings – Scope and Limitations – Contempt cannot be used to circumvent appellate remedies – Where Government passed detailed order dated 09.05.2025 pursuant to High Court’s earlier directions, proper course was to challenge said order – High Court erred in proceeding with contempt without first examining validity of latest order – Contempt jurisdiction not a substitute for substantive adjudication [Paras 17–18].

Directions to High Court – Expeditious Disposal – Respondents permitted to challenge Government order dated 09.05.2025 by fresh writ petition – High Court directed to hear writ petition along with pending contempt proceedings – High Court shall first decide writ petition on merits – Not to remand matter again for reconsideration – If satisfied, to issue clear and categorical directions – If not, to dismiss with reasons – Matter to be assigned for final disposal by 30.04.2026 – Civil Appeal disposed of [Paras 18–20].

Decision: Civil Appeal disposed of with directions – High Court to adjudicate fresh writ petition on merits and avoid further remand – Contempt proceedings to be considered in light of final adjudication.

Environmental Law – Encroachment on Reserved Forest – Constitutional Obligation of State – Large-scale encroachments in Reserved Forests in Assam – State placed data showing 3,62,082.62 hectares under encroachment affecting 19.92% of forest area – Article 48A casts duty on State to protect and improve environment and safeguard forests – Article 51A(g) imposes duty on citizens – Held: Protection of forests is a constitutional imperative and cannot be diluted by unauthorised occupation [Paras 9-10].

Environmental Governance – Rule of Law – Eviction of Alleged Encroachers – Appellants challenged eviction notices as arbitrary and violative of natural justice – Court emphasised that environmental protection must be pursued through lawful means – No dichotomy between environmental protection and rule of law – Both must co-exist and reinforce each other – State action must conform to fairness and due process [Paras 5, 10].

Reserved Forest – Policy Mechanism for Removal of Encroachments – State filed additional affidavit outlining procedure – Constitution of Committee comprising Forest and Revenue officials – Issuance of notice to alleged unauthorised occupants – Opportunity to produce documentary evidence – Passing of speaking order – Grant of 15 days’ time to vacate before eviction – Matters relating to land outside notified forest to be referred to Revenue Department – Held: Mechanism contains sufficient procedural safeguards and conforms to principles of fairness and reasonableness [Paras 11-13].

Forest Village and Gaon Panchayat – Permissible Occupation – Existence of Gaon Panchayat in forest area permissible under Section 5 of Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 – Persons whose names appear in Jamabandi Register of Forest Department or who hold rights under Forest Rights Act, 2006 are legally authorised occupants – Rights inheritable but non-transferable – Unauthorised occupants, even within Gaon Panchayat limits falling in Reserved Forest, liable to eviction following prescribed procedure [Paras 11-12].

Interference with High Court Orders – Substitution and Modification – Supreme Court substituted and modified orders of Division Bench and Single Judge of Gauhati High Court – Directed maintenance of status quo till speaking order passed and expiry of 15 days’ notice period – Clarified that no opinion expressed on merits of individual claims and contentions kept open before Committee – Writ petitions under Article 32 not examined in detail in view of mechanism evolved – Appeals and writ petitions disposed of [Paras 13-16].

Decision: Appeals and Writ Petitions disposed of – Mechanism evolved by State for eviction from Reserved Forests upheld as containing adequate procedural safeguards – Status quo to continue till speaking order and expiry of notice period – No order as to costs.