Service Matter - Employment Dispute – Interpretation of clause 4 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April 2002 – Whether clause 4 bars departmental proceedings when criminal proceedings for similar offences are pending against an employee – Court's interpretation of clause 4. [Para 1-13]

Simultaneous Proceedings – Permissibility of simultaneous departmental and criminal proceedings – Court's stance on the permissibility and desirability of simultaneous proceedings based on the nature of charges and other factors. [Para 14-15]

Effect of Acquittal – Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically lead to acquittal or discharge in departmental proceedings – Distinct nature and objectives of both proceedings highlighted. [Para 16-17]

Application of Clause 4 – Conditions for the operation of clause 4 – Requirement for at least one year to pass since the initiation of prosecution, reasonable duration for staying departmental proceedings, and application of clause 4 on a case-by-case basis. [Para 16-26]

Compliance with Natural Justice – No plea of violation of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings – Confirmation that natural justice principles were followed. [Para 24-25]

Upholding Dismissal – The dismissal of the delinquent employee from service as per the Memorandum dated 28th March 2003 is restored. [Para 30]

Legal Principles – The importance of higher standards of honesty and integrity for bank officers highlighted, emphasizing the need for good conduct and discipline in a bank's functioning. [Para 27]

Criminal Appeal – Suspension of Sentence – Applicant seeks suspension of sentence during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal – Conviction for conspiracy and murder – Alleged conspiracy to eliminate the deceased – Conviction under Sections 302, 120B, and 201 IPC – High Court's dismissal of the appeal – Co-accused granted benefit of doubt – Applicant's custody period and medical issues concerning his daughter considered – Sentence suspended, and the applicant directed to be released on bail. [Para 1-6]

Civil Appeal - Property Rights - Petitioner claims joint family property/Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property was mortgaged by petitioner's father as a guarantor - Father as Karta of HUF had the right to mortgage HUF property - No legal necessity or betterment of the estate established - Impugned judgment upheld - Special leave petitions dismissed.

Delay in Trial Proceedings – Petitioner accused of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Persistent delays in the commencement and continuation of trial for approximately 25-26 years, attributed to the petitioner's filing of multiple frivolous petitions.

Judicial Directions – Multiple directions issued by the High Court and approved by the Supreme Court to conclude the trial within a specified time frame, yet petitioner succeeds in stalling the trial proceedings through frivolous applications.

Judicial Discretion – Exercise of discretion by both the Trial Court and the High Court in dealing with meritless interlocutory applications – No infirmity found in the orders of the High Court.

Abuse of Process – Record of previous impositions of costs for filing frivolous petitions and concealing material facts – Supreme Court holds that misuse and abuse of legal process need to be dealt with firmly.

Cost Imposition – Dismissal of all three petitions filed by the petitioner with costs amounting to Rs. 3 Lakhs to be deposited with the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association for welfare activities.

Miscellaneous – All pending applications stand disposed of, with the stipulation for proof of cost deposit within a specified time frame.

Special Leave Petition (Criminal) – Dismissal: The petitioner sought to quash ongoing trial proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – The petition dismissed on grounds of abuse and misuse of legal process.

Abuse of Legal Process – Delay in Court Proceedings: Petitioner failed to appear during the trial, leading to issuance of a non-bailable warrant – Failure to participate further even 16 years after the lodging of the FIR, criticized as a glaring example of how litigants abuse and misuse the process of law.

Imposition of Costs: Due to the abuse of legal process, the court imposed costs amounting to Rs. 50,000/-, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association Welfare Fund.

Consequences of Non-compliance: The court specified that proof of such deposit must be submitted to the Registry within six weeks, failing which the Registry will list the matter for further orders. [Para 7]

FIR and Trial: The First Information Report was lodged in 2007, and the trial had reached an advanced stage with all prosecution witnesses examined and final arguments commenced – Petitioner's attempt to quash the proceedings at the fag end of the trial disapproved.

Decision: Petition dismissed with costs – All pending applications also stand disposed of.

Criminal Appeal – Interim Bail – Appellant seeks interim bail for the purpose of finalizing accounts for filing returns under the Companies Act and Income Tax Act – Appellant currently incarcerated in Sabarmati Central Correctional Home – Interim bail granted for three days with specific conditions. [Para 1-6]

Interim Bail – Conditions – Appellant's release on interim bail subject to terms determined by the Trial Court – Permission granted to travel to Mumbai for three days under CBI escort at his own cost – Requirement to provide accommodation for the CBI team in Mumbai – Obligation to return to the correctional home after three days. [Para 6(i)-(iv)]

Decision – The present appeal allowed, impugned order set aside, and interim bail granted as specified with conditions – Pending applications also disposed of. [Para 7]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction based on dying declaration – Doubt regarding voluntariness and reliability – Lack of corroboration – Conviction not sustainable. The appeal questions the conviction based on a dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate on 8th November 1991, three days after the incident. Doubts are raised concerning the voluntariness and reliability of the declaration, as it was suggested that the statement may have been influenced by the deceased's relatives. Discrepancies in the timing of medical examination and statement recording further cast doubt on the sequence of events. The absence of corroborating evidence weakens the credibility of the dying declaration, rendering the conviction unsustainable. [Para 10-12]

Dowry Death – Insufficiency of evidence to prove harassment due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry – Vague allegations without concrete support – Prosecution fails to establish the case under Section 304-B of IPC. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of the deceased's relatives to establish harassment due to non-fulfilment of dowry demands. However, their evidence lacked specificity and concrete details regarding the alleged harassment. Vague allegations without substantial corroboration could not prove that the deceased was subjected to harassment related to dowry demands. Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish a case under Section 304-B of IPC. [Para 17]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence quashed and set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds discharged. In light of the doubts surrounding the dying declaration and the insufficiency of evidence to prove dowry-related harassment, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 14th September 1999, affirmed by the High Court, are quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges, and his bail bonds shall stand discharged. [Para 18]

Criminal Appeal – Interim Protection – Grant of interim protection to appellant Kahana Ram – Petitioner's father in detention for about six months – No sharp or blunt weapon used in the crime – Injuries simple in nature – Appellant's objection to the construction of Pond – Appellant to cooperate with the investigation – No arrest until next hearing – FIR registered under various sections of IPC and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act – Interim order confirmed. [Para 1-5]

Bail – Release on Bail – Directions for bail if appellant Kahana Ram is arrested – Terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court – Compliance with Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Decision – Impugned judgment/order set aside – Appeal allowed – Observations made for the purpose of disposal of the appeal, not as findings and observations on the merits of the case.

Criminal Appeal – Regular Bail – Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.51 of 2020 – Allegations under Sections 384, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 448, and 120-B IPC – Dispute arises from a construction agreement – Prima facie, dispute appears civil in nature – Petitioner arrested and in custody since 21.07.2021 – Trial commenced with 8 witnesses examined – Release on bail granted, considering the period of custody and pending trial, without expressing views on merits. [Para 1-6]