Service Law - Prospective Resignation Withdrawal – Case involving Dr. Mrs. Suman V. Jain's right to withdraw her resignation before the effective date – Appellant’s prospective resignation could be withdrawn at any time before it became effective as there was no legal, contractual, or constitutional bar preventing such action – No prior consent to treat resignation as 'final, binding, and irrevocable' – The judgment of the College Tribunal and the High Court set aside – The appellant's service from 24.09.2003 to 01.10.2007 to be regularized without backwages, counting towards pension eligibility. [Paras 1, 17-21, 27, 29-30]

Legal Principles on Resignation – The Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing prospective resignation – The principle of 'locus poenitentiae' allows withdrawal of resignation before the effective date, subject to specific governing rules – The judgment of Gopal Chandra Misra and Srikantha S.M. applied, establishing that an employee could withdraw a prospective resignation before its effective date. [Paras 22-23, 26]

Pension and Retiral Benefits – Direction for regularization of service period and treating it as period spent on duty for pension purposes – Appellant entitled to pension and other retiral benefits from the combined tenure at both institutions, subject to minimum service requirement under the rules – The Trust directed to calculate and pay the pension and retiral benefits, including arrears, within four months. [Paras 29-30]

Breach of Agreement for Apartment Possession – Appellants (Krishnamurthy and another) filed an appeal against the NCDRC order which directed the respondent (Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd.) to deliver possession of an apartment with certain conditions and offered an option for refund with deductions - The Supreme Court found the NCDRC's decision inconsistent with the contractual agreement and the right of the appellants to terminate the agreement - The NCDRC overstepped in rewriting the agreement's terms [Paras 1-3, 8, 13-15, 22].

Non-Delivery of Possession within Agreed Period – The respondent failed to deliver possession of the apartment by the agreed date (30.06.2017), including the grace period - The Supreme Court observed that the respondent could not unilaterally change the agreed terms of the contract and that the appellants' right to terminate the agreement was absolute under Clause 11.3 [Paras 8-12, 18-20].

Refund with Interest – The Court ordered the respondent to refund the deposited amount of ₹2,25,31,148 in twelve equal monthly installments with 12% p.a. interest, contrary to the NCDRC's modified terms - The first installment was directed to be payable on 5th April 2024 [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Quashing of Proceedings – The Supreme Court deliberated on whether the proceedings under the Gangsters Act should continue against the appellants, Farhana and Sadarul Islam, following the quashing of the predicate offences. The appellants were initially charged under the Gangsters Act based on their alleged involvement in certain IPC offences. [Para 3, 5, 8]

Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Interpretation of Section 2(b)(i) – The Court examined the definition of 'gang' under Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act, which requires involvement in specific IPC offences. The Court noted that the prosecution under the Gangsters Act must clearly establish the involvement in antisocial activities as defined in the section. [Para 12, 13]

Quashing of FIR and Subsequent Proceedings – The Court found that since the High Court had quashed the FIRs against the appellants for the predicate offences under the IPC, the foundation for their prosecution under the Gangsters Act was removed. As such, continuing their prosecution was deemed unjustified and an abuse of court process. [Para 14, 15]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Proceedings under Gangsters Act – The Supreme Court quashed the impugned orders of the High Court and the FIR against the appellants under the Gangsters Act. It held that the continued prosecution of the appellants was unjustified following the exoneration in the predicate offences. [Para 16, 17]

Criminal Law – Malicious Prosecution – Quashing of FIR – The Supreme Court addressed the challenge against the High Court's dismissal of a petition for quashing FIR No. 248 of 2022. The FIR involved allegations of financial impropriety and deceit related to a job offer. The court scrutinized the circumstances under which the FIR was lodged, considering the delay in filing, lack of substantiation of claims, and the nature of the transaction involved. [Para 3, 8-13]

Analysis of Unlawful Contract and Delay in Action – Held – The Court observed that the transaction in question was unlawful, involving payment for securing a job. It highlighted the significant delay in lodging the FIR and the failure of the parties to produce relevant documents, raising questions about the genuineness of the claims. [Para 12-13]

Role of Police in Civil Disputes – Advisory – The Court advised caution for the police in dealing with disputes involving unethical transactions between private parties. It emphasized the importance of discerning genuine criminal cases from those driven by malicious intent, to ensure proper allocation of law enforcement resources. [Para 14-15]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Proceedings – The Supreme Court, finding the FIR to be motivated more by the desire for recovery of money through coercion than by a genuine need for criminal prosecution, set aside the High Court's order and quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising from it. The Court underscored the misuse of criminal proceedings in this context. [Para 16-17]

Public Interest – Resource Allocation – The judgment reiterates the need for judicious use of law enforcement resources and the avoidance of their entanglement in disputes of a private nature with dubious legal standing. [Para 14-15]

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Appeal against rejection of bail application by High Court – Appellant facing trial for multiple offences – Appellant in custody for over five years – Only two witnesses examined out of 35 prosecution witnesses – Co-accused granted bail by Supreme Court – Bail application allowed by Supreme Court – Conditions imposed for bail – Appellant directed to cooperate in trial proceedings – Misuse of liberty cautioned against – Bail to be cancelled in case of any violation of conditions – Appeal allowed. [Para 1-3, 5-6]

Bail Conditions – Trial Court directed to release appellant on bail – Conditions to be imposed by Trial Court to ensure appellant's presence in trial proceedings – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 2, 6]

Consumer Law – Obligations of Companies – Role in Recovering Lost Products – The Supreme Court considered whether a company is obligated under the Consumer Protection Act to act as a law enforcement agency in recovering lost products. The case involved Apple India Private Ltd., challenging a State Commission's order that required the company to trace a stolen mobile phone.

State Commission's Order – Paragraph 14 – The court examined Paragraph 14 of the State Commission's order, which imposed an obligation on the company to trace the stolen mobile phone using its unique identity number. This was considered a deficiency of service on the company's part.

Supreme Court’s Decision – Obliteration of Paragraph 14 – The Supreme Court held that the obligations imposed by Paragraph 14 of the State Commission’s order were unwarranted. Consequently, the court directed the removal of Paragraph 14 from the order, thereby relieving the company of the responsibility to act as a law enforcement agency in recovering lost products.             

Issuance of Summons without Order – Summons issued to the appellant (Accused No. 10) without an order by the Special Court, contrary to the procedure under PMLA and CrPC. The appellant voluntarily surrendered and applied for bail, which was rejected. [Paras 2, 4, 7]

High Court Dismissal – High Court dismissed the appellant’s challenge to the Special Court’s order, leading to the current appeal. [Para 3]

Question of Law – Appellant’s surrender and bail application based on a misconception of fact and law. Special Court entertained the bail application despite the absence of an order for summons or arrest warrant. [Paras 5, 9-10]

Supreme Court’s Observation – Court found a fundamental flaw in the proceedings before the Special Court. Summons served without an official order for issuance. [Para 9]

Decision – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the release of the appellant on bail, subject to terms imposed by the Special Court. Noted the possibility for the Special Court and the respondent – ED to pass appropriate orders or file proceedings as required by law. [Paras 11-15]

Misconduct and Insubordination Allegations – Assessment of appellant's dismissal from service on charges of derogatory language use and bypassing official communication channels – Appeal against Allahabad High Court's dismissal of writ petition challenging service termination. [Paras 2-4]

Evaluation of First Misconduct Charge – Inquiry Officer's findings on appellant's use of inappropriate language and false allegations against officials deemed perverse by Supreme Court – Misinterpretation of appellant's statement in the letter dated 05.06.2003 led to erroneous conclusion. [Paras 7-10]

Analysis of Second Misconduct Charge – Appellant's direct communication with higher authorities without following official protocol – Supreme Court views the action as not amounting to major misconduct for a Class-IV employee under financial hardship. [Para 11]

Scope of Judicial Review in Disciplinary Proceedings – Supreme Court's approach to review findings of Inquiry Officer – Interference justified in cases of perverse findings or erroneous interpretation of evidence, citing relevant precedents. [Para 12]

Judgment and Order – Supreme Court sets aside High Court judgment and order of appellant's dismissal – Orders reinstatement in service with all benefits, acknowledging the disproportionate nature of the original punishment and flawed inquiry process. [Para 13]

Service Law - Military Law and Gender Discrimination – Invalidity of Termination on Grounds of Marriage – The Supreme Court, in addressing the issue of Ex. Lt. Selina John's termination from the Military Nursing Service post-marriage, held that such termination was wrongful and illegal. The rule mandating release on grounds of marriage, applicable solely to women, was deemed manifestly arbitrary and constituting gender discrimination. [Para 1-2]

Constitutional Law – Right to Non-Discrimination and Fair Treatment – The Court emphasized that laws or regulations perpetuating gender-based bias violate constitutional mandates. Specifically, it was held that rules which treat marriage and domestic responsibilities of women as a basis for employment termination are unconstitutional. [Para 3]

Modification of Army Instruction – The Court noted the withdrawal of Army Instruction No. 61 of 1977, which governed the terms of service for permanent commissions in the Military Nursing Service, further reinforcing the stance against gender-based employment policies. [Para 4]

Award of Compensation – In light of the unjust termination, the Supreme Court directed the appellants to pay Ex. Lt. Selina John compensation of Rs. 60,00,000. The compensation was declared as a full and final settlement of all claims. The Court also stipulated an interest penalty for delayed payment. [Para 5-6]