Criminal Procedure – Jurisdiction of Court-Martial vs. Criminal Courts – Concurrent jurisdiction exists for court-martial and ordinary criminal courts in cases involving army personnel charged with civil offences – Section 125 of the Army Act grants discretion to the designated officer to decide the trial forum – Designated officer's decision not to exercise this discretion implies default to ordinary criminal court jurisdiction – High Court erred in holding that only court-martial had jurisdiction – Sessions Judge’s competence affirmed, trial to proceed in criminal court [Paras 1-48].

Sections 69 and 125 of the Army Act – Interpretation – Section 69 subjects army personnel to Army Act for civil offences unless Section 70 applies – Section 125 provides discretion to the designated officer to opt for court-martial – No inherent ouster of criminal court jurisdiction without designated officer's decision for court-martial – Conjunctive requirement under Section 125 necessitates an explicit decision for court-martial jurisdiction [Paras 14-45].

Procedural Compliance – Section 475 CrPC and 1978 Rules – Magistrate required to issue notice to commanding officer to decide trial forum – However, established cooperation of army authorities and deferral to criminal court proceedings indicated compliance – High Court’s insistence on certified decision documents misplaced, given factual cooperation and evidence during criminal trial [Paras 46-48].

Punishment under Army Act vs. IPC – Concurrent jurisdiction ensures no preferential treatment in sentencing – Army Act provides for lesser punishment in certain offences, not for serious offences like murder – Interpretation confirms no legislative intent to favor military personnel over ordinary law application for grave crimes [Para 49-50].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Sessions Judge’s jurisdiction affirmed – Trial to resume from stage of interruption by jurisdictional decision – Accused transferred from military to civil custody for trial conclusion [Paras 51-52].

Service Law – Pension Fixation – Respondent retired as a selection grade Lecturer on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.7.2006 – Initial pension fixation errors corrected by High Court, confirming pre-revised pension at Rs. 8907 – Revised pension fixed at Rs. 19334 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 following High Court directions – Appellant challenged revised fixation citing leave without allowances period – Court upheld fixation based on average emoluments as if uninterrupted service – Account General's pension fixation upheld [Paras 1-10].

Average Emoluments Calculation – Kerala Service Rules – Circulars G.O.(P) No. 211/2011/Fin dated 7.5.2011 and G.O.(P) No. 230/2012/Fin dated 19.4.2012 – Clarified computation of average emoluments over 10 months preceding retirement, considering notional pay adjustments during leave without allowances – Court emphasized correct application of rule and circulars in pension fixation [Paras 5-9].

Legal Interpretation – Service Rules and Pension – Circulars must be read to provide equitable pension calculations ensuring uninterrupted service emoluments – Employee's pension to reflect potential earnings without penalizing for leave without allowances – Rule interpretation supported by High Court directions [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment confirming Accountant General's pension fixation upheld – No costs awarded [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Burden of Proof – Alibi – Appeal against conviction for murder – Plea of alibi by appellant – Trial court and High Court concurrently found plea of alibi unconvincing – Supreme Court reiterates heavy burden on accused to prove alibi with certainty – Evidence adduced by appellant sketchy and insufficient to exclude presence at crime scene – Appeal dismissed on grounds of failure to discharge burden of proof [Paras 16-20].

Inquest and Post-Mortem Reports – Discrepancies – Discrepancies between inquest and post-mortem reports – Inquest report not substantive evidence but serves to ascertain cause of death – Post-mortem report by medical expert given more weight – Supreme Court finds no merit in claims of ante-dated FIR and discrepancies impacting prosecution case [Paras 28-32].

Judicial Review – Concurrent Findings – Supreme Court emphasizes limited scope of judicial review in criminal appeals – Interference warranted only in cases of manifest error or miscarriage of justice – Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts not disturbed unless clearly perverse – Appellant's arguments on defective investigation and absence of independent witnesses found unpersuasive [Paras 36-37].

Decision- Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentences upheld – Directions for compliance with procedural mandates regarding evidence and investigation reiterated – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 38].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Judicial Review – Appeal challenging the High Court's decision to set aside the dismissal of a bank employee – Supreme Court emphasizes that judicial review under Article 226 is not appellate in nature – Courts can intervene when findings are based on no evidence, are perverse, or are based on irrelevant material – High Court's decision scrutinized the record and found the disciplinary findings unsupported by evidence – Appeal dismissed, High Court judgment upheld, employee's dismissal set aside, and reinstatement with all benefits ordered [Paras 1-26].

Scope of Judicial Review – Evidence and Perversity –,Findings of disciplinary authority can be reviewed if based on no evidence or ignoring material evidence – Procedural fairness and reasonable opportunity must be ensured in disciplinary proceedings – High Court correctly found the charges against the employee not substantiated by evidence – Confession by other employees could not be used against the respondent without corroborative evidence – Supreme Court supports High Court's conclusion that findings were perverse and unsupported by evidence [Paras 16-25].

Decision- Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment and order dated December 16, 2008, upheld – Respondent to be reinstated with all consequential benefits – Bank directed to calculate and pay arrears of salary, increments, and terminal benefits within three months [Paras 26].

Tender Process – Judicial Review – Appeals challenging High Court's interference with the tender inviting authority's decision – Tender for supply of tablets – Supreme Court emphasizes that the tender inviting authority is the best judge of its requirements – Court should not interfere unless there is mala fide or perversity – High Court's decision to interpret tender terms contrary to the tender inviting authority's interpretation was erroneous – Appeals allowed, High Court judgment set aside, writ petition dismissed [Paras 1-29].

Interpretation of Tender Documents – Authority's Discretion – Tender inviting authority interpreted "similar category products" to exclude smart phones from tablets – High Court's detailed analysis of similarities between tablets and smart phones was unnecessary – Authority's interpretation aligned with categorization on GeM portal and customs classifications – Decision of authority upheld as it was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable [Paras 18-23].

Decision- Appeals allowed – High Court judgment and order dated September 27, 2021, set aside – Writ Petition (C) No. 6676 of 2021 dismissed – No order as to costs [Paras 28-29].

Labour Law – Termination – Reinstatement and Compensation – Appeal against High Court's decision affirming Labour Court's order of reinstatement with back wages – Respondent's termination in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act – Supreme Court finds that reinstatement and back wages not warranted for a contractual employee on fixed honorarium – Orders lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages [Paras 1-8].

Industrial Disputes Act – Breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G – Respondent worked as a sweeper on contractual basis at a fixed honorarium – Termination found in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G by Labour Court – No specific allegations of unfair labour practice – Supreme Court modifies the order of reinstatement and back wages to lump sum compensation, considering nature of appointment and honorarium [Paras 2-7].

Decision- Appeal partly allowed – High Court judgment and Labour Court award modified – Appellant directed to pay lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to respondent within four weeks – No order as to costs [Paras 8].

Constitutional Law – Article 32 – Premature Release – Petition seeking premature release from prison based on policy at the time of conviction – Petitioner served 22.5 years without remission and almost 28 years with remission – Supreme Court directs consideration under the 2018 policy, as recent changes in 2021 policy imposing age limit are prima facie unsustainable – State Government directed to reconsider the clause prescribing a minimum age of 60 years [Paras 1-14].

Penal Code – Sections 302, 307, 323, 34 – Sentencing and Remission – Petitioner convicted under IPC Sections 302, 307, 323, and 34 – High Court appeal pending for 17 years – Supreme Court notes that the appeal pendency does not preclude State Government from considering remission – Directs State Government to consider petitioner’s case for remission under 2018 policy within three months – State Government also directed to revisit 2021 policy within four months [Paras 2-14].

Decision- Writ Petition allowed – Directions issued for consideration of petitioner’s remission within three months – State Government to re-examine the 2021 policy clause on minimum age within four months – Petitioner granted bail pending consideration [Paras 14-15].

Limitation Law – Preliminary Issues – Appeal against dismissal of suit based on limitation – Suit filed under Order 37 of the CPC for recovery of a business loan – Trial court and High Court dismissed the suit as time-barred – Supreme Court holds that the issue of limitation intertwined with factual disputes should not be decided on preliminary arguments alone – The determination of limitation requires evidence, thus should be addressed along with other issues at trial [Paras 1-15].

Order XIV Rule 2 CPC – Issues of Law and Fact – Discussion on the applicability of Order XIV Rule 2 CPC – Supreme Court clarifies that issues of limitation can only be decided as a preliminary issue if based on admitted facts – When facts are disputed, the issue of limitation cannot be isolated and decided in preliminary proceedings [Paras 13-14].

Decision- Appeal allowed – Judgment of the trial Judge dated August 16, 2018, and Single Judge of the High Court dated September 4, 2019, set aside – Issue of limitation to be decided along with other issues at trial [Para 15].

Service Law – Seniority and Promotion –Dispute over seniority between contractual employees regularized retrospectively and another employee appointed through direct recruitment – Regularization of respondents' service was cancelled by the State Government but reinstated by the High Court – Supreme Court upheld respondents' seniority based on initial appointment dates, continuity of service, and promotion in accordance with service rules – Appeal by KTDFCL partially allowed to clarify non-entitlement of arrears of salary for the period out of service [Paras 1-25].

Regularization and Reinstatement –Employees appointed on contract were regularized but later terminated – High Court quashed termination and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service but without monetary benefits for the period out of service – Supreme Court affirmed the continuity of service and upheld seniority and promotion benefits excluding salary arrears [Paras 4-6, 16, 22-24].

Promotion Criteria – Application of Service Rules –Respondents entitled to promotion based on continuity of service despite gaps in actual service due to termination – Promotional post to be filled in accordance with applicable service rules – Supreme Court affirmed High Court's decision with modifications regarding arrears of salary [Paras 17-23].

Decision: Appeals disposed of – Reinstatement with continuity of service upheld – Promotion to Chief Manager to be governed by service rules – No arrears of salary for the period out of service [Paras 24-26].