Employment Law – Departmental Inquiry – Representation by Retired Employee – The Supreme Court held that there is no absolute right for an employee facing departmental proceedings to be represented by a retired employee of the bank as his DR – Regulation 44 of the Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, does not specifically permit or restrict the engagement of a retired employee as a DR – The High Court erred in permitting such representation without considering Clause 8 of the Handbook of Vigilance Administration & Disciplinary Action, which mandates that the DR should be a serving official/employee of the bank – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-33].

Regulation and Handbook Procedure – Harmonious Reading – The Court emphasized that the provisions of Regulation 44 and the Handbook Procedure should be read harmoniously – The Handbook, approved by the Board of Directors, is supplementary to the regulations and binding on all employees – It specifically requires the DR to be a serving official/employee, thus excluding retired employees [Paras 7-10].

Right to Representation – Limits and Employer's Discretion – It was reiterated that the right to representation in departmental proceedings is not absolute and can be restricted by the employer through regulations or standing orders – The principle is to avoid any outsider, including retired employees, from representing in internal inquiries to maintain decorum and confidentiality [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment permitting the respondent to be represented by a retired employee in the departmental inquiry set aside – Directions issued to adhere to the Handbook Procedure requiring the DR to be a serving employee – No order as to costs [Para 10].

Arbitration Law – Termination of Mandate – Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act – The Supreme Court held that the originally constituted Arbitral Tribunal, a Stationery Purchase Committee comprising officers of the respondent, had lost its mandate by operation of law under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – A fresh arbitrator is required to be appointed under the provisions of the Act – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-33].

Neutrality of Arbitrators – Amendment Act 2015 – The Court emphasized that the Amendment Act 2015 was introduced to ensure the neutrality of arbitrators – Any person whose relationship with the parties or the subject matter of the dispute falls under the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule is ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator – The prior constitution of the arbitral tribunal in the year 2001 does not exempt it from the application of the amended Section 12(5) [Paras 7-9].

Applicability of Section 12(5) – Prospective and Retrospective Operation – The Court clarified that Section 12(5) applies to ongoing arbitral proceedings unless there is an express agreement in writing post-dispute to continue with the same arbitrators – The principle of independence and impartiality applies regardless of the timeline of the constitution of the tribunal [Paras 8-9].

Appointment of Fresh Arbitrator – Ineligibility of Previous Arbitrators – The originally constituted tribunal comprising officers of the respondent is declared ineligible – The Court appoints a fresh arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties [Paras 9-11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order dated 27.08.2021 set aside – The earlier Arbitral Tribunal's mandate terminated – Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, former Judge of the Supreme Court, appointed as the fresh arbitrator – Directions issued for expeditious conclusion of arbitration proceedings [Paras 10-12].

Election Law – Disqualification of Panchayat Members – Appealability: The Supreme Court held that no remedy of appeal is envisaged against an order of the State Election Commission or its delegatee (the Collector) under Section 14B(1) rejecting the complaint or dropping proceedings for the declaration of a Sarpanch/Member having incurred disqualification. Such an order becomes final and is deemed to have been passed by the State Election Commission itself. The Divisional Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against such an order. The appeals are allowed [Paras 1-23].

Jurisdiction of Divisional Commissioner – Finality of Collector’s Order: The Court emphasized that the Divisional Commissioner would have no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the Collector's order under Section 14B(1). The State Election Commission or its delegatee cannot review or reconsider such an order once passed. The High Court's analogy drawn from Section 16(2) was incorrect, as the processes under Section 14B and Section 16 are distinct [Paras 14-17].

Legislative Intent – Appeals and Review: The statutory framework does not provide for an appeal against the rejection of a disqualification complaint by the Collector. The only instance where the Divisional Commissioner or State Election Commission can intervene is to remove or reduce the period of disqualification once it has been declared. This design prevents the same authority from reviewing its own decisions, ensuring finality and preventing jurisdictional overreach [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Orders of the Divisional Commissioner dated 15.07.2019 are set aside – The Collector's orders rejecting the Dispute Applications are restored – No order as to costs [Para 23].

Criminal Law – Marital Disputes – Settlement and Conviction: The Supreme Court held that the conviction under Section 498-A IPC should be quashed in light of the settlement between the appellant and his wife, who have resolved their disputes and are now living together harmoniously. The High Court erred in not setting aside the conviction despite acknowledging the settlement. Appeal allowed [Paras 1-11].

Impact of Settlement on Conviction – Judicial Discretion: The Court emphasized that maintaining the conviction of the appellant would not serve the ends of justice, especially given the settlement and the appellant's potential job loss, which could lead to financial distress affecting the marital harmony. The judicial approach should favor genuine settlements in matrimonial disputes to foster reconciliation and peace [Paras 7-8].

Precedents – Encouraging Settlement of Matrimonial Disputes: The Court cited precedents emphasizing the importance of quashing criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes upon genuine settlements. It underscored the role of courts in encouraging such settlements to avoid prolonged litigation and promote harmony [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment modified – All proceedings arising out of FIR No. 204 of 2014 quashed qua the appellant – Conviction under Section 498-A IPC set aside [Paras 10-11].

Service Law – Dismissal – Respondent driver dismissed for causing an accident resulting in four deaths due to rash and negligent driving – Industrial Tribunal ordered reinstatement without back wages but with continuity of service, citing disproportionate punishment – High Court dismissed writ petition challenging Tribunal's order and directed back wages and retiral benefits – Supreme Court held that the acquittal in criminal proceedings does not impact disciplinary proceedings – Upheld dismissal as proportionate to misconduct [Paras 1-14].

Disciplinary Proceedings vs. Criminal Proceedings – Court emphasized the distinction between criminal acquittal and disciplinary proceedings – Acquittal due to lack of evidence does not negate established misconduct in departmental enquiry – Supreme Court reiterated that disciplinary action can be justified despite acquittal in criminal court [Paras 10.3-10.4].

Assessment of Proportionality – Consideration of past conduct – Court noted respondent's previous punishments during short tenure – Reinstatement deemed inappropriate given gravity of misconduct and past record – Supreme Court emphasized the need for proportionality in disciplinary actions considering overall conduct [Paras 10.5-11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Reinstatement order by Industrial Tribunal and back wages order by High Court quashed – Original dismissal order by Labour Court reinstated – No costs awarded [Para 14].

Service Law – Assured Career Progression (ACP) Benefits – Respondents refused offered regular promotions due to personal reasons – Subsequently, ACP benefits were wrongly granted and later withdrawn based on clarificatory O.M. dated 18.7.2001 – Tribunal upheld withdrawal of ACP benefits, but High Court reversed the decision, restoring ACP benefits – Supreme Court held that refusal of regular promotion disqualifies employees from ACP benefits – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-21].

Refusal of Promotion – Impact on ACP Eligibility – Supreme Court emphasized that refusal of regular promotion offered before eligibility for ACP benefits precludes grant of financial upgradation – Clarified that such refusal indicates absence of stagnation, disqualifying employees from ACP benefits under O.M. dated 9.8.1999 [Paras 13-16].

Distinction between Regular and Officiating Promotions – Court differentiated between refusal of regular promotion and conditional officiating promotion – Held that refusal of conditional officiating promotion does not impact ACP eligibility – Allowed ACP benefits to employees offered only officiating promotions [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Appeals concerning refusal of regular promotions (Civil Appeal Nos. 7027-7028 of 2009) allowed – Appeals concerning refusal of officiating promotions (Civil Appeal Nos. 7150-7151 of 2009) dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 21].

Contract Law – Claim for Interest on Delayed Payment – Bonds issued by defendant SIDBI were transferred to plaintiff SIBCO during "suspect spell" – RBI directives and ongoing liquidation proceedings against CRB Capital influenced withholding of payment – Plaintiff accepted principal and accrued interest without protest, later demanded additional interest for delayed payment – Supreme Court held that withholding was justified and defendant acted in compliance with statutory directives – Claim for additional interest akin to Shylockian demand, rejected [Paras 1-15].

RBI Directives – Statutory Force – RBI’s directive dated 09.06.1997 issued in public interest to prevent alienation of assets by CRB Capital under liquidation – SIDBI’s compliance with directive upheld as statutorily binding – Plaintiff’s claim for delayed interest dismissed as defendant acted within legal framework and public policy considerations [Paras 8-8.14].

Fraudulent Preference – Suspect Transactions – Bonds transferred during suspect spell raised concerns of fraudulent preference under Section 531 of Companies Act – Defendant’s actions to withhold payment until clearance by Company Court deemed reasonable – Transfer to SIBCO cleared only on 17.12.2004, payment made promptly thereafter [Paras 9-9.8].

Constructive Res Judicata – Plaintiff’s failure to claim interest during writ proceedings or at time of initial payment acceptance without protest bars subsequent claim – Principle of waiver/acquiescence applied – Subsequent suit barred by constructive res judicata [Paras 14-14.1].

Decision – Appeals allowed, judgment of Trial Court dismissing the suit restored – Plaintiff’s cross-appeal for pendente lite interest rejected – No order as to costs [Paras 15.5-15.6].

Arbitration – Remittal to Arbitrator – Section 34(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Court's discretion to remit matter to arbitrator to fill gaps in reasoning or provide additional reasons – Not obligatory to remit in cases of patent illegality or absence of findings on contentious issues – High Court dismissed motion for remittal as arbitral award lacked findings on key issue of abrupt and illegal termination of contract – Appeal dismissed [Paras 17-22].

Patent Illegality – Arbitrator’s Award – Arbitral award challenged for lacking findings on contentious issue – Respondent claimed accord and satisfaction evidenced by documents not considered by arbitrator – Remittal inappropriate where award is per se illegal or findings ignore material evidence – Arbitrator cannot alter award under guise of providing additional reasons [Paras 18-21].

Discretionary Power – Section 34(4) of Arbitration Act – Court’s discretion to remit matter based on appropriateness – Factors include grounds in application under Section 34(1), grounds for remittal, and responses thereto – Not obligatory for Court to remit merely on application – Remittal intended for cases with inadequate reasoning, not for altering findings [Paras 20-21].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court order upheld – Remittal not appropriate due to absence of findings on key issue and potential alteration of award – No order as to costs [Para 22].

Income Tax – Deductible Expenses – Section 40(a)(iib) – Gallonage fee, licence fee, and shop rental (kist) paid by appellant with respect to FL-9 and FL-1 licences fall within purview of Section 40(a)(iib) – Surcharge on sales tax and turnover tax not considered as 'fee' or 'charge' under Section 40(a)(iib), disallowance of these amounts rightly set aside by High Court [Paras 14-16].

Statutory Interpretation – Fee vs. Tax – Distinction between 'fee' and 'tax' maintained in Section 40 – Surcharge on sales tax and turnover tax are outside scope of Section 40(a)(iib) – Principle of ejusdem generis applied to interpret scope of 'fee' or 'charge' [Para 14.3-14.5].

Legislative Intent – Section 40(a)(iib) – Intended to prevent diversion of profits from State-owned undertakings to State treasury under guise of fees and charges – Levy considered exclusive if imposed on State-owned undertakings irrespective of number of entities holding licences [Para 14.1-14.2].

Decision – Appeals filed by the revenue partly allowed – Appeal filed by appellant dismissed – Assessments for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 to be revised as per directions – Assessing officer to pass revised orders within two months from receipt of judgment [Paras 16-17].