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].

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.

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.

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.

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].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – State as Litigant – Appeal dismissed as time-barred – High Court refused to condone delay of over 11 years in filing appeal without certified copy – Supreme Court held that no “sufficient cause” shown – Mere procedural delay in obtaining approvals not a valid ground – Delay characterized as “lame excuse” and not explanation – SLP dismissed as time-barred [Paras 12, 20-22; ].

Section 5 Limitation Act – “Sufficient Cause” – Elastic but not limitless – Expression must subserve ends of justice – Court reiterated that condonation is discretionary and cannot be claimed as matter of right – Bureaucratic red tape not an automatic ground for condonation [Paras 13, 21; ].

State Litigant – Liberal Approach – Earlier decisions in Katiji and Ramegowda allowed latitude to Government recognizing institutional delays – However, later trend including Living Media, University of Delhi and Pathapati Subba Reddy reflects stricter scrutiny – Court observed that there is a point beyond which even courts cannot assist Government litigant suffering from bureaucratic indifference [Paras 14-19; ].

Explanation vs Excuse – Distinction – Court emphasized that cause shown must be genuine explanation and not routine, stereotyped justification – Government’s plea of procedural approval delay held inadequate – Conduct found “utterly lethargic, tardy and indolent” both before High Court and Supreme Court [Paras 17, 20; ].

Public Policy – Law of Limitation – Object is to ensure finality and prevent indefinite pendency of litigation – Merits of case cannot be examined at stage of condonation of delay [Para 16; ].

Decision: Applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing SLP rejected – Special Leave Petition dismissed as time-barred.

Land Acquisition – Applicability of 2013 Act – Section 24(1)(a), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Held – Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act applies to cases where land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the 1894 Act but the award was passed after the commencement of the 2013 Act – In such cases, only the provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply, excluding rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements, as these are new benefits not extended retrospectively – This ensures just and fair compensation under the beneficial legislation – The 2013 Act, being a special law, is intended to provide more benefits and a robust mechanism for compensation. [Paras 4, 14-17, 22-23, 97(i), 97(ii)]

Land Acquisition – Role of Collector and Authority – Sections 23, 51, 60, 61, 63, 64, 69, 70, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Held – The Collector, when passing an award under Section 23 or making a reference under Section 64, performs quasi-judicial and executive functions, but not an exclusively judicial role – The Authority established under Section 51 of the 2013 Act, comprising a legally trained person, exercises powers akin to a Civil Court (Section 60), conducts judicial proceedings (Section 61), and its award under Section 69 is deemed a decree and judgment (Section 70) – The Authority acts as the first judicial forum, and proceedings before it are original in nature – Consequently, the Collector does not have the discretion to invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in reference applications. [Paras 24, 26-28, 30-31, 33, 74]

Limitation – Applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 to appeals under Section 74 of 2013 Act – Section 74, 103, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 5, 29(2), Limitation Act, 1963 – Held – Section 74 of the 2013 Act, which provides for a 60-day period for filing appeals to the High Court with a further 60-day grace period, does not expressly exclude the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 103 of the 2013 Act clarifies that its provisions are "in addition to and not in derogation of" other existing laws, thereby facilitating borrowing from enactments like the Limitation Act – A mere prescription of a limitation period in a special law does not imply an express exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act – The High Court, as an appellate court, is entitled to apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in appeals under Section 74 of the 2013 Act, adopting a liberal and pragmatic approach consistent with the beneficial nature of the 2013 Act and the right to fair compensation. [Paras 35-36, 37-38, 59-62, 63, 67-68, 71, 75-78, 79, 80-81, 97(iv)]

Judicial Administration – Condonation of Delay – Accountability of State Instrumentalities – Held – Given the beneficial nature of the 2013 Act and the interest of justice, all applications for condonation of delay in filing first appeals before the High Courts under Section 74 of the 2013 Act are allowed, setting aside impugned judgments that held Section 5 of the Limitation Act inapplicable – The widespread delays and lackadaisical approach by acquiring bodies and their counsel indicate potential collusion or carelessness, undermining public confidence – State Governments are directed to implement necessary measures to ensure timely filing of appeals and to fix responsibility on erring officials to prevent future delays. [Paras 82-85, 97(v), 97(vii), 97(viii)]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgments set aside insofar as the issue of application of Section 5 of the 1963 Act is concerned – All applications seeking condonation of delay in preferring the first appeals before the High Courts under Section 74 of the 2013 Act stand allowed – High Courts are expected to adjudicate on merits, except to the extent of observations made pertaining to the incidental issue – The respective State Governments will have to take necessary measures and issue appropriate directions to the officers dealing with the appeals under Section 74 of the 2013 Act against the awards passed after the commencement of the 2013 Act to ensure that the appeals are filed as provided under Section 74 of the 2013 Act – High Courts shall avoid a pedantic approach as against a pragmatic one in dealing with the applications seeking condonation of delay – Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. [Paras 83, 97, 98, 99]

Anticipatory Bail – Alleged House Trespass and Theft – FIR under Sections 329(1), 329(4), 62, 351(3), 305 and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Appellant accused of trespassing into complainant’s house and committing theft – Complainant claimed possession on basis of agreement to sell – Bail rejected by Trial Court and High Court – Interim protection granted by Supreme Court subject to cooperation with investigation – Appellant appeared before Investigating Officer – Held, mere refusal to answer certain questions does not ipso facto amount to non-cooperation – Existence of civil dispute regarding immovable property and parity with co-accused already granted bail considered – Appellant entitled to anticipatory bail [Paras 4–6].

Cooperation with Investigation – Scope – Court observed that appearance before Investigating Officer pursuant to interim protection satisfies condition of cooperation – Non-answering of questions by itself not sufficient to deny anticipatory bail in facts of case [Paras 5–6].

Parity – Grant of Bail – Where co-accused have been granted bail and allegations arise in context of civil property dispute – Principle of parity applicable – Appellant granted anticipatory bail on appropriate terms and conditions [Para 6].

Order: Leave granted – Appeal allowed – Impugned order of High Court set aside – Appellant directed to be released on anticipatory bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the jurisdictional Investigating Officer – Appellant to appear before Trial Court on all dates of hearing unless specifically exempted – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 7–8].

Motor Accident Compensation – Just Compensation – Proof of Income – Mandatory future prospects for fixed salary employee below 40 years – “Loss of love and affection” not a separate head – Such loss subsumed within consortium – Compensation enhanced.

Motor Vehicles Act – Just Compensation – Governing Principles – Compensation under Sections 166 and 168 is not a bonanza but a fair and reasonable estimate to alleviate financial and emotional hardship of dependants – Determination involves estimation guided by settled legal principles and binding precedents – Award must balance fairness, consistency and equity [Paras 12–14].

Assessment of Income – Documentary Proof – Error by High Court – Salary certificate issued by employer (Ex. P-14) and corroborated by employer’s affidavit clearly established monthly income of deceased at Rs. 10,000/- – Insurer failed to impeach evidence – Courts cannot resort to conjecture when cogent evidence is available – Income fixed at Rs. 10,000/- per month [Paras 16].

Future Prospects – Fixed Salary Employee – Mandatory Addition – Deceased aged 37 years and employed on fixed monthly salary – As per Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi, addition of 40% towards future prospects is compulsory – High Court’s failure to grant future prospects held to be manifest error of law – Binding nature of Article 141 reiterated [Paras 17–19].

Computation of Loss of Dependency – Monthly income Rs. 10,000/- – Addition of 40% towards future prospects – Deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses – Multiplier of 15 applicable – Total loss of dependency computed at Rs. 18,90,000/- [Paras 20].

Conventional Heads – Loss of Love and Affection – Not Maintainable as Separate Head – Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi overruled Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh – Compensation confined to loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses – Award of separate compensation for “loss of love and affection” impermissible [Paras 22–24, 29].

Consortium – Expanded Meaning – Spousal, Parental and Filial Consortium – Consortium is a compendious term encompassing spousal, parental and filial consortium – Emotional deprivation of love, care, affection and companionship subsumed within consortium – Principle clarified in Magma General Insurance and harmonised in Satinder Kaur [Paras 26–28].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedents – Constitution Bench decisions bind courts of lesser strength – Tribunals and High Courts must adhere to structured formula and recognised heads to maintain uniformity and certainty in awards [Paras 23, 28].

Final Award – Re-determination by Supreme Court – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 20,80,000/- – Interest awarded @ 9% p.a. from date of filing of claim petition till realization considering prolonged litigation of 15 years – Insurer directed to pay balance within twelve weeks [Paras 30–32].

Decision: Civil Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court modified – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 20,80,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. – Insurer directed to deposit balance amount within stipulated period.