Military Law – General Court Martial – Sentence Reduction: The Armed Forces Tribunal reduced the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and cashiering to dismissal from service. The Supreme Court evaluates the tribunal's decision, considering the procedural and evidentiary aspects, including the proper constitution of the GCM and the alleged acts of the respondent [Paras 1-47].

Jurisdiction and Procedure – Composition of GCM: Respondent contended that GCM was improperly constituted as members were of lower rank. Supreme Court found that reasons recorded by the convening officer regarding the unavailability of officers of the respondent’s rank were valid under Rule 40(2) of Army Rules. Judicial review of such decisions is limited to checking for arbitrariness, irrationality, or unreasonableness [Paras 21-23].

Charges and Evidence – Standard of Proof: Supreme Court scrutinizes charges related to procurement decisions and alleged fraud. Tribunal found no evidence of actual fraud or wrongful gain, despite inference of attempts to cause wrongful gain. The court concludes that findings were based on conjectures and that the respondent did not commit any act resulting in actual loss or wrongful gain [Paras 24-45].

Decision:- Appeal dismissed.- Transferred Case (Criminal) No. 1 of 2017: Allowed. GCM’s order dated 18th February 2011 and AFT’s order dated 10th October 2013 set aside. Respondent acquitted of all charges. Entitled to all pensionary and consequential benefits with arrears to be computed and paid within three months [Paras 46-47].

Service Law – Suspension and Pay Allowances: Respondents were under suspension during disciplinary proceedings which did not result in their complete exoneration. Consequently, they fall outside the scope of Rule 54(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1958. Supreme Court determines that exact pay and allowances should be less than full pay, but remitting the matter back would be inequitable. Orders payment at 50% of pay and allowances for the period in question [Paras 1-14].

Principles of Natural Justice: The disciplinary authority must provide notice to the employee before passing orders on pay and allowances during suspension. In this case, the failure to provide notice rendered the proceedings deficient. Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of hearing the employee before finalizing decisions on pay during suspension [Paras 12-13].

Equitable Relief: Given the long pendency and the age of the respondents, the Supreme Court adopts a middle path by directing payment of 50% of the entitled pay and allowances instead of full back wages, balancing fairness and practical considerations [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Respondents to be paid 50% of the pay and allowances for the period of suspension – No order as to costs [Para 14].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint: The plaintiff initially approached the Revenue Authority/Tehsildar, who rejected the application under Section 250 of MPLRC for lack of jurisdiction over title disputes. Upon filing a civil suit, the defendants took a contrary stance, leading to the rejection of the plaint by the High Court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, citing Section 257 MPLRC. Supreme Court holds defendants cannot approbate and reprobate, taking contradictory stands before different forums. The suit should not be barred in this context, leaving the plaintiff remediless [Paras 1-5].

Jurisdiction – Revenue Authority and Civil Court: Supreme Court reinstates trial court’s rejection of the Order 7 Rule 11 application, emphasizing that defendants cannot object to jurisdiction in Revenue Authority and later in Civil Court for the same issue. The High Court erred in its decision to allow the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC based on Section 257 MPLRC [Paras 2.1-4].

Principle of Appropriation and Reprobation: Defendants cannot take mutually contradictory stands to prevent the plaintiff from seeking legal remedy. The Revenue Authority’s dismissal on jurisdiction grounds should have sufficed to allow the Civil Court to entertain the suit [Paras 2.4-4].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court order quashed – Trial Court’s rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC restored – Suit to proceed in accordance with law – No costs ordered [Paras 5].

Specific Relief – Agreement to Sell – Loan/Security Document: The appellants challenged the judgment of the High Court affirming the first appellate court's decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 11.02.2004, contending that the agreement was actually a loan/security document. Supreme Court observes that merely because the agreement mentioned that the sale proceeds were intended for marriage expenses, it does not transform a clear agreement to sell into a loan/security document. The court upholds the finding that the agreement was for the sale of property, not a loan agreement [Paras 1-6].

Concurrent Findings – Execution and Payment: Supreme Court notes concurrent findings by the trial court, first appellate court, and High Court confirming the execution of the agreement and receipt of part sale consideration by the vendor. The trial court's refusal to grant specific performance was solely based on its mistaken interpretation of the agreement as a security document [Paras 5-6].

Discretionary Relief – Section 20 of Specific Relief Act: Supreme Court clarifies that Sections 20(a) and 20(c) of the Specific Relief Act, which provide discretionary grounds for denying specific performance, are not applicable in this case. The respondent had always been ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement, and the courts below rightly granted specific performance [Paras 7-8].

Complete Justice – Additional Payment: To do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court directs the original plaintiffs to pay an additional Rs. 350,000 to the appellants, over and above the balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000 (to be paid with 6% interest from the date of the agreement). The original defendants are directed to execute the sale deed upon this payment [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court and first appellate court's decree for specific performance affirmed – Plaintiffs directed to make additional payment – Defendants to execute the sale deed upon receipt [Para 8].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Doctrine of Equality: The respondent, a Junior Engineer, faced disciplinary action for financial irregularities. The Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority found the charges proved. The Tribunal and High Court quashed the punishment by applying the Doctrine of Equality, noting that other officers involved were exonerated. Supreme Court holds that the Doctrine of Equality should not apply when charges are proven against an individual. The role of each officer must be considered individually, and exoneration of others does not justify quashing punishment if the individual's misconduct is proven. Negative equality claims are not valid in such cases [Paras 1-10].

Principles of Natural Justice – Violation – Remand for Fresh Enquiry: Tribunal found enquiry proceedings violated principles of natural justice as relevant documents were not supplied to the delinquent officer. Supreme Court reaffirms that when an enquiry is found to be vitiated, the case should be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed from the stage where the violation occurred, ensuring all necessary documents are provided and due process is followed [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court and Tribunal's findings quashing the punishment based on the Doctrine of Equality are set aside. Case remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage of the issuance of the charge sheet, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice. The enquiry to be completed within six months. No order as to costs [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Cheating and Breach of Contract: A mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages. The distinction between a breach of contract and cheating, which is a criminal offence, is a fine one. Cheating involves fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of the contract, which must be prima facie established to proceed with criminal prosecution. The complaint filed by the respondent does not disclose dishonest or fraudulent intention of the appellants. The delay in filing the complaint (almost 4 years) and the identical nature of complaints filed in different jurisdictions indicate an attempt to harass the appellants rather than a genuine criminal grievance [Paras 1-36].

Forum Shopping and Abuse of Process: Filing multiple complaints in different jurisdictions based on the same facts is considered forum shopping and is an abuse of the process of law. The complaint in Kolkata was a reproduction of the complaint filed in Delhi, with only jurisdictional details changed. Such practices are condemned as they lead to harassment and unnecessary litigation [Paras 7-12].

Quashing of Proceedings – High Court's Role: High Courts should exercise their powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings when continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. In this case, the High Court failed to appreciate the malafide intentions behind the complaints and the lack of prima facie evidence for criminal charges [Paras 13-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – FIR No. 168 dated 28.03.2013 and proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1221 of 2013 quashed – No costs ordered [Para 44].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Acquisitions – High Court erred in holding that acquisitions had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Trend of landowners seeking lapse based on interim orders of stay, resulting in delayed awards and compensation – High Court should consider interim orders' impact before applying Section 24(2) – Matter remanded for fresh determination [Paras 1-11].

Right to Fair Compensation – High Court’s Failure to Consider Other Issues – High Court only addressed the lapse issue under Section 24(2) without adjudicating other relevant issues – Courts must adjudicate all issues to avoid remand – Appeals allowed, High Court's judgment set aside, and matter remanded for fresh consideration on all issues [Paras 8-12].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Matters remanded for fresh assessment of all issues except the lapse under Section 24(2) – High Court instructed to complete the re-evaluation within twelve months [Para 12].

Court Fees – Suit for Damages – High Court erred in holding that the respondent could pay court fees on a tentative amount, directing him to pay ad valorem court fees on the claimed amount of Rs. 20 lakhs – Supreme Court held that suits for damages or compensation falling under Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act require payment of court fees according to the amount claimed – Liberty to value the relief as per Section 7(iv) is not applicable to suits under Section 7(i) – High Court's order set aside, Trial Court's direction restored, requiring respondent to make good the deficiency in court fees [Paras 20-37].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Trial Court's order restored, directing respondent to pay court fees on the claimed amount of Rs. 20 lakhs within four weeks – Respondent also required to pay court fees in the appeal based on the relief sought [Paras 36-38].

One Rank One Pension – Implementation and Disparities – Petitioners challenged the deviation from the original definition of OROP, arguing the shift from automatic revision to periodic revision every five years created disparities among pensioners of the same rank – Supreme Court held the policy decision to revise pensions every five years was within the scope of policy choices available to the Union Government and did not violate constitutional principles of equality – The policy of revising pensions based on the average of minimum and maximum pension of 2013 retirees was upheld, as the decision lay within the domain of policy choices and did not warrant judicial interference [Paras 24-28].

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations – Petitioners' reliance on the doctrine of legitimate expectations for automatic pension revisions rejected – Court held that ministerial statements and committee recommendations did not constitute binding policy decisions – The executive's final policy decision embodied in the 7 November 2015 communication governed the implementation of OROP [Paras 26-27].

Plea of Discrimination – Alleged inequalities due to the MACP Scheme and periodic revision – Court found no violation of Article 14, explaining disparities in pension due to different service lengths, MACP benefits, and the averaging method for pension calculation were reasonable – The differentiation based on dates of retirement did not create unconstitutional classification [Paras 29-32].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the Union Government's policy on OROP as defined by the 7 November 2015 communication – The court directed that the government’s periodic revision of pension every five years did not breach constitutional mandates of equality [Paras 12-28].