Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Quantum of Punishment – Supreme Court emphasized that the question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority – Judicial review by High Courts and Administrative Tribunals under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited to the applicability of Wednesbury principles – Interference warranted only if the punishment is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the court [Paras 8, 11].

Disciplinary Action – Section 43 of the Shashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 – Appellant charged with indiscipline and misconduct for entering Mahila Barrack at midnight – Disciplinary authority imposed penalty of removal from service – Supreme Court held that indiscipline in a disciplined force like SSB, compromising the security of occupants of the Mahila Barrack, justified the punishment – Comparisons with lesser punishment of another employee (female constable) not valid as misconduct nature differed significantly [Paras 9-11].

Proportionality and Equality – Negative Discrimination – Merely because a lesser punishment was imposed on another employee cannot justify a claim of disproportionate punishment – Punishment depends on various factors like the position of the employee, role attributed, and nature of allegations – Supreme Court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Division Bench upheld – Punishment of removal from service deemed appropriate and not disproportionate to the misconduct proved [Paras 12].

Land Acquisition – Withdrawal from Acquisition – Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Notification dated 07.07.2005 exempting land from acquisition – Appellant's failure to challenge said notification – Subsequent order dated 25.04.2008 attempting to cancel exemption based on Government Order dated 15.09.2006 – Supreme Court held that Government Order dated 15.09.2006 was prospective and did not affect prior notifications – High Court rightly set aside order dated 25.04.2008 as it was based on an inapplicable Government Order [Paras 10-12, 23].

Procedure under Land Acquisition Act – Compliance with Section 9(3) – Notice under Section 9(3) necessary to validate possession – Supreme Court found appellant failed to establish issuance of notice under Section 9(3) – Possession not taken as per statutory requirements – Notification exempting land from acquisition upheld [Paras 21-22].

Judicial Review – Administrative Orders – Principles of Natural Justice – Government's power under Section 48 subject to fairness and bona fide action – Supreme Court emphasized the need for due process and opportunity for affected parties – Arbitrary withdrawal from acquisition without adherence to due process invalid [Paras 14-17, 23].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's orders affirmed – Notification dated 07.07.2005 exempting land from acquisition upheld – Appellant may proceed with fresh acquisition in accordance with law [Para 23].

Taxation – Interest on Delayed Refunds – Section 56 of CGST Act – Supreme Court held that interest at the rate of 6% per annum applies unless covered by the proviso to Section 56 – Proviso applies where refund arises from an order passed by adjudicating authority or court – In present case, no such order existed, hence 6% interest rate applies – High Court's award of 9% interest set aside [Paras 13, 19].

Judicial Review – Tax Statutes – Compliance with Statutory Provisions – Supreme Court emphasized importance of adhering to specific provisions in tax statutes – Discretion in awarding interest should align with statutory guidelines unless exceptional circumstances warrant deviation [Paras 18, 19].

Refund Procedure – Delay in Payment – Refund of integrated tax paid on export of goods – Delay ranged from 94 to 290 days – Supreme Court held no extraordinary delay justifying higher interest rate – Refunds to be processed with interest at 6% per annum [Paras 3.1, 19].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Interest rate on delayed refunds reduced from 9% to 6% per annum – Refunds already paid with 6% interest deemed sufficient – No further action required [Paras 20, 21].

Judicial Service – Promotion – LDCE Eligibility – Supreme Court addressed the need to modify the eligibility criteria for promotion through LDCE for the DHJS – Recognized that in the High Court of Delhi, both Civil Judges (Junior Division) and Civil Judges (Senior Division) perform similar duties, differing mainly in pay scales – Modified criteria to require 7 years qualifying service (5 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) or 10 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division)) to better reflect practical conditions and provide promotional incentives [Paras 1-18].

Promotion Policy – Addressing Practical Difficulties – Modified the order dated March 21, 2002, and April 20, 2010, to accommodate practical realities and maintain promotional incentives for meritorious officers – Emphasized necessity of providing career advancement opportunities to enhance judicial service quality [Paras 10-18].

Special Provisions – High Court of Delhi – Specific Modifications – Recognized unique situation in the High Court of Delhi where the nature of duties for Civil Judges (Junior Division) and Civil Judges (Senior Division) is identical – Tailored modifications to apply specifically to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service to address these peculiar conditions [Paras 11-18].

Decision: Applications allowed – Modified previous orders to require 7 years qualifying service (5 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) or 10 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division)) for promotion through LDCE – Adjustments specific to Delhi Higher Judicial Service [Para 17].

Land Acquisition – Enhancement of Compensation – Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Appellants challenged the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, seeking enhancement – Reference Court increased compensation – High Court partly allowed appeals, reducing compensation – Supreme Court observed that future use of acquired land for industrial/commercial purposes should not determine compensation – Considered non-agricultural potentiality and location of lands – Directed enhanced compensation with interest adjustments for delay in appeal filing [Paras 1-15].

Judicial Review – Compensation Determination – Consistency with Legal Principles – Supreme Court scrutinized High Court's reliance on sale exemplar from the same village – Emphasized necessity of cumulative increase rate adjustments to reflect fair market value accurately – Directed uniform approach to compensation for contiguous lands acquired for the same purpose [Paras 10-14].

Interest on Enhanced Compensation – Delay in Appeals – Adjustments – Directed claimants not to be entitled to interest for periods of delay in appeal filings, ensuring equitable treatment and procedural fairness [Para 15].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Enhanced compensation awarded – Adjusted interest for delay periods – Directed expeditious disposal with statutory benefits [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Confessional Statements – Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Supreme Court criticized the tendency of prosecuting agencies to record entire confessions instead of only the part leading to the discovery of facts – Held that such practice leads to inadmissible confessions influencing judicial minds – Court emphasized strict adherence to the admissible portions of confessions under Section 27 [Paras 18-19].

Evidence – Admissibility – DVD Statements – Voluntary statements of the appellants recorded on DVD and played in court were inadmissible as they were confessions to a police officer – Supreme Court disallowed such evidence, emphasizing adherence to procedural safeguards for recording confessions under Section 164 CrPC [Paras 20-21].

Media Influence – Prejudicial Publicity – Supreme Court condemned the publication of confessional DVDs by a TV channel, terming it as direct interference in the administration of justice – Stressed that such matters are solely within the court's domain [Paras 21].

Prior Convictions – Use of Unverified Charts – Chart indicating gang involvement of the appellants without supporting documents was deemed insufficient to influence sentencing – Supreme Court stressed the need for verified documentation of prior convictions for consideration in sentencing [Paras 22-23].

Circumstantial Evidence – Insufficient Chain of Proof – Prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence failed as critical links were unestablished – Supreme Court acquitted the appellants due to insufficient evidence proving their involvement beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 25-33].

Insider Trading – Presumption of Communication – UPSI: Allegations against the appellants for insider trading based on familial relationships and trading patterns were dismissed due to lack of evidence showing communication of UPSI. The court emphasized the necessity of establishing foundational facts before drawing inferences and rejected the presumption based solely on circumstantial evidence and proximity of relationships [Paras 24-48].

Burden of Proof – Foundational Facts – SEBI Regulations: SEBI failed to demonstrate that the appellants were "connected persons" or "insiders" with access to UPSI. The court highlighted the principle that the burden of proving possession of UPSI lies with the accuser, and mere familial connections or trading patterns are insufficient to establish insider trading [Paras 32-33, 43-44].

Procedural Fairness – Natural Justice – Show Cause Notices: Reliance on facts not included in the show-cause notices violated principles of natural justice. Allegations regarding transactions between appellant Sachin Gupta and PC Jeweller Ltd. were not part of the initial show-cause notice, making their consideration improper [Para 46].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment and final orders of WTM and SAT set aside – Deposits made by the appellants in terms of impugned orders to be refunded [Paras 49-50].

Service Law – Misconduct – Quantum of Punishment: The respondent, a Postal Assistant, committed fraud involving fraudulent withdrawals in 85 RD accounts and non-credit of deposits in 71 RD accounts, defrauding Rs. 1,659,065. Despite the respondent's subsequent deposit of the defrauded amount with interest, the Supreme Court held that this did not mitigate the gravity of the misconduct. The Tribunal's and High Court's substitution of the penalty from removal to compulsory retirement was deemed unjustified, as the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was appropriate given the severity of the misconduct [Paras 8-10].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope: The court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review concerning the proportionality of disciplinary action. It emphasized that courts should not interfere with the quantum of punishment if procedural requirements are met and the decision of the disciplinary authority is within legal parameters. Sympathy and sentiments should not influence judicial decisions on disciplinary matters [Paras 7-7.1].

Impact on Departmental Reputation – Consideration of Gravity: The court highlighted the broader impact of the respondent's actions on the department's reputation, goodwill, and public trust. The mere restitution of the defrauded amount did not absolve the respondent of the severe breach of trust and misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority's decision to remove the respondent was deemed necessary to uphold the integrity and credibility of the public service [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The judgments of the Tribunal and High Court modifying the punishment to compulsory retirement are set aside – The Disciplinary Authority's order of removal from service is restored [Paras 11-12].

Arbitration – Pre-deposit Requirement – Section 19 of MSMED Act: The court held that the pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under Section 19 of the MSMED Act is a mandatory requirement when challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The court overruled the High Court's decision that treated the pre-deposit requirement as directory [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Review – Hardship Consideration: While the requirement to deposit 75% of the awarded amount is mandatory, the court acknowledged that in cases of undue hardship, the appellate court may allow the pre-deposit to be made in instalments. This consideration ensures that the mandatory requirement does not cause undue burden on the appellant [Para 4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The High Court's order permitting proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act without the pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount is quashed and set aside. The respondent is directed to deposit 75% of the awarded amount before its application under Section 34 is entertained and considered on merits. Until this deposit is made, the execution proceedings may continue [Paras 5-6].