Sexual Harassment Allegations - Disciplinary Proceedings - The respondent, an Area Organizer at the Service Selection Board (SSB) Rangia, Assam, faced allegations of sexual harassment from a female colleague. Initial on-spot inquiries and reports by Frontier and Central Complaints Committees failed to fully substantiate these allegations - Central Complaints Committee's subsequent inquiry established the charges, leading to disciplinary action against the respondent. [Para 3-13]

Sexual Harassment Allegations and Inquiry Reports – Analysis of multiple inquiry reports concerning allegations of sexual harassment against Dilip Paul, a government servant - Examination of the procedural aspects of these inquiries, including the role of the Central Complaints Committee and adherence to the Vishaka guidelines. [Paras 3-13, 20-21]

Applicability of the Vishaka Guidelines – Application and interpretation of the Vishaka guidelines in the context of disciplinary proceedings against a government servant accused of sexual harassment - formation of the Complaints Committee, the procedure followed for inquiries, and ensuring a harassment-free workplace. [Paras 34-40]

Disciplinary Proceedings and Sexual Harassment – Application of 1965 CCS Rules and 2006 Standing Order – The Central Complaints Committee (CCC) conducted inquiries under the 1965 CCS Rules and 2006 Standing Order for sexual harassment allegations. The flexibility provided by the term "as far as practicable" in Rule 14(2) of the 1965 CCS Rules was interpreted to strike a balance between sensitivity and fairness. The committee, as the inquiring authority, was tasked with adopting a fair and feasible procedure while adhering to natural justice principles. [Paras 41, 43-44, 70-71, 73]

Judicial Review in Disciplinary Proceedings – The scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to examining the propriety and fairness of the decision-making process and inquiry procedure. Courts should not reappreciate evidence or substitute their findings for those of the disciplinary authority. However, courts may intervene if there's no evidence supporting the authority's findings, or if the decision is unreasonable or perverse. [Paras 42, 82-89, 91-93]

Handling Multiple Complaints and Sequential Inquiries – The validity of conducting multiple inquiries into the same allegations was upheld. The need for a subsequent inquiry by the CCC after an initial on-the-spot/preliminary inquiry was justified, especially when the first committee was improperly constituted or lacked seniority over the respondent. This approach was in line with ensuring a thorough and fair investigation into the allegations. [Paras 98-102]

Application of Test of Prejudice in Procedural Irregularities – The principle of "test of prejudice" is applied in cases of alleged procedural impropriety or violation. It assesses whether such violations resulted in prejudice or loss of fair hearing. This principle is crucial in determining the validity of disciplinary actions and inquiries. [Paras 57, 92]

Standard of Proof and Evidence in Disciplinary Inquiries – The standard of proof in departmental inquiries is based on the preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt - committee’s findings were supported by various witness testimonies, indicating the presence of some evidence against the allegations, thus negating the argument of "no evidence." [Paras 94-97, 102]

Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of the High Court dated 15.05.2019 were set aside. The disciplinary authority's penalty order was restored, with a clarification that no recovery of amounts already paid to the respondent would be made.

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Sections 302 and 498A IPC – The appellant convicted and sentenced by both lower courts for causing the death of his wife by setting her ablaze – Appeal for reconsideration of conviction under Section 302 IPC, proposing a charge under Section 304 Part-II IPC instead. [Para 1-9]

Evidence – Multiple Dying Declarations – Two dying declarations by deceased wife, one before Judicial First Class Magistrate and the other recorded by Head Constable, along with the corroborative testimonies of other witnesses, establish appellant's act of setting his wife ablaze after she poured kerosene on herself amidst a quarrel. [Para 11-16]

Culpable Homicide and Murder – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Appellant’s argument for a charge under Section 304 Part-II IPC based on lack of premeditation and sudden quarrel rejected, as the act of setting ablaze was deliberate with a history of domestic quarrels, thus not falling within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, and hence confirmed as murder under Section 302 IPC. [Para 18-24]

Judgment – Dismissal of Appeal – The appeal lacks merit due to overwhelming evidence proving the appellant's guilt in the intentional act of murder – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment upheld with a note on appellant’s liberty to apply for remission as per state policy. [Para 25-26]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction Challenge – Appeals challenging the common judgment and order dated 14^th March 2018, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, upholding the conviction and sentencing of the appellants for offences under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 326 read with Section 149, Section 324 read with Section 149, Section 323 read with Section 149, and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). [Para 2]

Incident Background – The appellants were part of an unlawful assembly that assaulted and caused the death of Madan and injured others. The incident was a result of a dispute over a shed constructed by one of the appellants, Jalim Singh, which was damaged by a buffalo belonging to the complainant party. [Para 3.1-3.4]

- Formation of Unlawful Assembly – The appellants were part of an unlawful assembly formed with the common object of assaulting the complainant party, leading to the death of Madan. [Para 3, 10, 13-15]

- Defence and Injuries – The defence argued that the accused were returning from the Police Station when they were assaulted by the complainant party, resulting in a free fight. Injuries sustained by the accused were not explained by the prosecution. [Para 17-19]

- Conviction Alteration – The Supreme Court altered the conviction under Section 302 IPC to Part-II of Section 304 IPC, considering the possibility that the accused did not have the intention to cause death. [Para 25-27]

Specific Performance of Contract – Dispute over execution of sale deed for property sold in 1990 – Suit filed after repeal of the Fragmentation Act – High Court judgement setting aside first appellate court’s decree for specific performance reversed by Supreme Court. [Paras 1, 3-4, 10-11]

Validity of Agreement to Sell – Agreement to Sell executed in 1990, before the repeal of the Fragmentation Act – High Court erroneously held agreement void due to alleged violation of Fragmentation Act – Supreme Court found that the agreement was not a conveyance and thus not barred under the Fragmentation Act. [Paras 6, 8-10]

Limitation Period and Execution of Sale Deed – Respondents delayed execution of sale deed – Suit filed by appellant within the limitation period – First Appellate Court’s finding that suit was within limitation upheld. [Paras 4-5, 10]

Admission of Agreement Execution – Respondent admitted during cross-examination to executing Agreement to Sell – Supreme Court held that such admission, along with full consideration and transfer of possession, negated other defenses by respondents. [Paras 4, 10]

Decision – Supreme Court allowed the appeal – High Court's judgement set aside, and the First Appellate Court's decree for specific performance restored – No order as to costs. [Paras 10-12]

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal in a Case of Aiding Suicide – Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Dying declaration doubted – Evidence of crucial witnesses unreliable – Prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 1-7]

Dying Declaration – Evaluation of dying declaration’s credibility – Absence of doctor’s endorsement and conflicting evidence raises serious doubts – Reliability compromised, leading to exclusion from consideration for conviction. [Paras 6-7]

Witness Testimony – Non-supportive crucial witnesses and withholding of material witness by the prosecution – Adverse inference drawn against the prosecution for not presenting the sister of the deceased as a witness. [Paras 3, 5]

Evidence and Proof – Requirement for unimpeachable quality of evidence if conviction is based solely on dying declaration – Prosecution’s failure to present convincing evidence results in appellant’s acquittal. [Para 3, 7]

Decision – Appellant acquitted due to prosecution’s inability to establish guilt – Orders against appellant quashed and set aside – Bail bond cancelled as appellant was on bail. [Para 7-9]

Property Dispute – Dispute over title and possession of two blocks of lands located in Thenkasi Taluk, Kadayanallurpet, Tamil Nadu – Petitioners, as legatees of Mohideen Abdul Khadar, claim interest in the said lands against Rahmath Beevi and others. [Para 2]

Title & Tenancy – Mohideen claimed title over the first scheduled property and sought protection of his possession over the second scheduled property under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 – Rahmath Beevi claimed ownership of the second scheduled property and sought vacant possession of the same. [Para 3-4]

Trial Court’s Decision – Mohideen’s claim over the first scheduled property upheld, but his claim over the second scheduled property dismissed – Rahmath Beevi granted relief of mandatory injunction for removal of Mohideen from certain properties and awarded damages. [Para 5]

Appellate Court’s Decision – Upheld Mohideen’s title over the first scheduled property and set aside the Trial Court’s judgment on the second scheduled property – Judgment in Rahmath Beevi’s suit also set aside. [Para 6]

High Court’s Decision – Confirmed the dimension of the second scheduled property in Rahmath Beevi’s plaint – Held that the notice under Section 106 of the 1882 Act was valid and that the petitioners were not entitled to protection under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. [Para 7-8]

Locus of Petitioners – Questions raised regarding the petitioners’ locus to maintain the petitions based on a testamentary instrument – Court held against the petitioners on merit without delving into the locus issue. [Para 9]

Decision – Petitions dismissed, and any interim order vacated – No order as to costs. [Para 10-12]

Civil Appeal – Suit for possession and mesne profits – Appellant contests judgment and order of High Court affirming Trial Court’s decree in favor of the respondent – Suit based on unregistered documents – Issue of Hiba (oral gift) raised – Appellant’s contention that unregistered documents do not confer ownership rights supported. [Para 1-10]

Property Ownership – Requirement of compulsory registration for transferring title to immovable property – Reference to sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act – No right, title, or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document – Judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) and other relevant judgments cited. [Para 10-13]

Maintaining Suit – Respondent’s argument that the judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) is prospective is rejected – Suit could not have been maintained on the basis of unregistered documents – Suit dismissed. [Para 14-15]

Civil Appeal – Review Petitions – Challenge to a common judgment and order dated 06.09.2022 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2020 – Review Petitioners aggrieved by the judgment seek a review – Scope of review discussed. [Para 1-6]

Review Jurisdiction – The power to review judgments is conferred by Article 137 of the Constitution of India, subject to applicable laws and rules – Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and Order XLVII CPC govern the procedure for review – Review can be sought not only by parties to the judgment but also by “aggrieved persons.” [Para 7]

Review Criteria – Review is allowed only on specific grounds, such as the existence of an error apparent on the face of the record – The purpose of a review is not to reargue the case but to correct manifest errors. [Para 8-10]

Coordination Bench – A co-ordinate Bench cannot comment on the judgment of another co-ordinate Bench of equal strength – Subsequent decisions of co-ordinate or larger Benches by themselves cannot be grounds for review. [Para 20-23]

Scope of Review – The Review Petitioners failed to establish an error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment – The judgment had considered the relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the Waterfall mechanism under Section 53 – Review dismissed. [Para 24-27]

Appeals against Acquittal – Grave Offences – Appeals by the complainant and the State against the acquittal of accused by the Rajasthan High Court for grave offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, while convicting only for lesser offences – The High Court based its decision on perceived discrepancies in witness testimonies and assumption of a sudden altercation – Appeals admitted for consideration by the Supreme Court. [Para 1-2]

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility Assessment – Critical evaluation of key eyewitnesses, particularly the testimony of Rami (PW-2), an injured witness and wife of the deceased – High Court discredited her testimony due to minor discrepancies between her statements under Section 161 Cr.PC and in her examination-in-chief – Supreme Court emphasizes the credibility and significance of an injured eyewitness testimony in unraveling the truth. [Para 7, 19-21, 27]

Medical Evidence – Corroboration of Eyewitness Testimony – Medical evidence confirming the brutal assault on the deceased and PW-2, substantiating the claims of the eyewitnesses about the violent attack – The High Court’s oversight in not giving due consideration to the medical evidence highlighted. [Para 12-13, 10]

Defence Witnesses – Evaluation of Credibility – Scrutiny of defence witnesses, particularly DW-4, whose credibility was under question due to past misconduct – The High Court’s error in giving undue weightage to dubious defence evidence, thereby skewing the assessment of the incident. [Para 24]

Legal Interpretation – Sections 302 & 307 IPC – High Court’s erroneous interpretation of the incident as a sudden clash devoid of premeditation, leading to wrongful acquittal under Sections 302 & 307 IPC – Supreme Court’s corrective interpretation, recognizing the gravity of the assault but granting a limited benefit of doubt to the accused due to minor discrepancies in PW-2's testimony. [Para 28-30]

Conviction Modification – Sections 304 part I & 308 IPC – Supreme Court’s modification of the convictions to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and attempt to commit culpable homicide, respecting the gravity of the incident while considering minor discrepancies in witness testimony – Sentencing the accused to rigorous imprisonment, thereby delivering a balanced judgment. [Para 31]

Order for Surrender and Sentence Execution – Directive for the remaining accused to surrender for the execution of the sentence, with adjustments for the period already served – Abatement of the case against the deceased accused, Jethnath, and discharge of bail bonds if any. [Para 32]