Criminal Procedure – Summoning of Accused – Magistrate's Power – Whether a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC can issue summons to any person not arraigned as an accused in the police report – Supreme Court held that the Magistrate has the power to summon a person not named in the police report if there are materials on record revealing prima facie involvement in the offence – The jurisdiction to issue summons can be exercised even if the person's name does not feature in the FIR or police report [Paras 2-21].

Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Evidentiary Value – Statement made by the victim under Section 164 CrPC can be considered for summoning an accused not named in the police report – The Magistrate can act on such statements if satisfied with the involvement of the person in the offence [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court, finding no error in the Magistrate's order summoning the appellant based on the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC – Interim order dissolved [Paras 22-24].

Service Law – Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) – High Court erred in striking down the latter part of Rule 3A – Rule 3A must be read in conjunction with Rule 3, Note 2, and Ruling 3 – These provisions provide for the treatment of DCRG in case of disciplinary or judicial proceedings pending at the stage of retirement – Even in the absence of proceedings, amounts can be recovered from DCRG [Paras 27-37].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Withholding of DCRG – The principle that DCRG can be withheld during the pendency of disciplinary or judicial proceedings affirmed – Appeal is a continuation of proceedings, allowing for withholding of DCRG during such period – High Court’s order directing the release of DCRG to employees convicted in criminal cases (with appeals pending) set aside [Paras 28-41].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – DCRG not to be released pending criminal appeals – Matter remanded for compliance with the provisions of Rule 3A of the KSR [Paras 42-43].

Service Law – Discharge of Judicial Officer – High Court erred in treating appellant's negligence as misconduct warranting discharge – No continuous illegal orders were passed, only one bail order involved – Enquiry officer improperly acted as a court of appeal, focusing on alleged errors in the bail order – Discharge order deemed punitive as it resulted from disciplinary enquiry and placed stigma on appellant's competence – Appellant entitled to protection under Article 311(2) – High Court's order of discharge quashed, appellant to be reinstated with 50% back wages [Paras 2-27].

Constitutional Law – Article 311(2) – Protection in Case of Punitive Action – Discharge not based on 'unsatisfactory performance' but on enquiry finding misconduct – Non-communication of ACRs to appellant arbitrary – Discharge constituted punitive action due to stigmatization – Appellant entitled to protection under Article 311(2) [Paras 28-37].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Discharge order quashed – Appellant to be reinstated with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and seniority but entitled to only 50% back wages [Para 37].

Service Law – Seniority – Determination of Seniority among direct recruits and promotees under the Central Excise and Land Customs Group-C Recruitment Rules, 1979 – High Court upheld seniority list based on indents placed with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for direct recruitment – Supreme Court held that actual vacancies must be considered, not merely indented vacancies – Department’s failure to account for all direct recruit vacancies (including compassionate appointments and sports quota) led to erroneous seniority determination – Matter remanded for fresh consideration based on actual vacancies [Paras 1-62].

Promotion vs. Direct Recruitment – High Court erred in treating promotees as ad-hoc due to non-reporting of direct recruit vacancies – Promotions made within the quota should be treated as regular – Promotions and regularizations within the promotee quota during the ban on direct recruitment should be considered for seniority purposes – Supreme Court directed recalibration of seniority list in light of these findings [Paras 56-62].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – CAT’s order restored – Matter remanded to determine seniority based on actual vacancies, including those filled under compassionate appointments and sports quota [Paras 60-62].

Trademark Infringement – Ad-interim Injunction – High Court Division Bench erred in allowing an appeal against a Single Judge’s order granting time for filing affidavits and postponing the hearing for ad-interim injunction – Order by Single Judge did not have finality traits, thus not appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent – Division Bench’s order granting injunction reversed [Paras 22-25, 35-38].

Civil Procedure – Appeal against Interlocutory Orders – Not every order passed by a trial judge constitutes a ‘judgment’ under Clause 15 – Only orders affecting vital and valuable rights, having traits of finality, are appealable – Appeal against Single Judge’s order was not tenable, as it merely postponed the injunction hearing and allowed filing of affidavits [Paras 15-21, 23-26].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Division Bench’s judgment set aside – Single Judge’s order reinstated, directing the matter for prompt resolution without influence from prior observations [Paras 38-40].

Judicial Service Examination – Age Limits – Upper age limit for DJS and minimum age requirement for DHJS challenged – Delhi High Court amended the age criteria, leading to candidates becoming ineligible due to examination delays – Supreme Court allowed candidates who would have qualified in 2020 and 2021 to appear for 2022 exams as a one-time measure – For DJS, candidates who would have been eligible if exams were held in 2020 and 2021 can apply by 3 April 2022 and appear on 24 April 2022 – For DHJS, candidates eligible in 2020 and 2021 can apply by 26 March 2022 and appear on 3 April 2022 [Paras 18-20, 28-30].

Constitutional Law – Article 233 – Age Requirement – Article 233(2) prescribes a seven-year practice requirement for District Judge appointment but does not preclude High Courts from setting minimum age limits – Age limits ensure maturity and experience – Challenge to minimum age of 35 for DHJS rejected, as it aligns with Shetty Commission recommendations and policy for attracting experienced candidates [Paras 24-27].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Age criteria relaxed for 2022 exams – Writ petitions disposed of [Paras 30-32].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – High Court erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on grounds of limitation and maintainability – Entire plaint must be considered, not isolated averments – Plaint cannot be partially rejected; reliefs are interconnected – Cause of action for permanent injunction can arise when possession is sought to be disturbed – High Court exceeded jurisdiction in rejecting the plaint without properly considering the entire plaint averments [Paras 7.1-8].

Transfer of Property – Section 53A – Maintainability – Suit invoking Section 53A for declaration and permanent injunction cannot be summarily rejected – Whether plaintiffs are entitled to relief under Section 53A to be determined at trial – High Court erred in concluding that such a suit is not maintainable [Paras 7.4-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order rejecting the plaint set aside – Trial to proceed on merits without being influenced by observations regarding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Appellant, Chairman and Managing Director of MSPL Limited, implicated in conspiracy to evade road tax – Allegations of short payment of road tax found to be baseless – Supreme Court held the proceedings against the appellant to be misconceived and harassive – The chargesheet lacked specific allegations or material evidence against the appellant – Criminal proceedings quashed as they were in abuse of process of law [Paras 25-45].

Director's Liability – No Vicarious Liability – Court reiterated that criminal proceedings against company officials require specific allegations of individual involvement – Summoning order must reflect application of mind and satisfaction of prima facie case against officials – Absence of specific role attributed to the appellant warranted quashing of proceedings [Paras 25-28, 34-36].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Proceedings against appellant quashed – Further proceedings in lower court stayed [Para 45].

Employees Compensation – Interest on Compensation – Deceased sugarcane laborer died from snake bite – Compensation awarded by Commissioner with interest from date of incident – High Court modified interest commencement to one month after Commissioner’s order – Supreme Court held liability to pay compensation arises from date of death, thus interest payable from date of accident – High Court's judgment modified to reflect this [Paras 4.1-6].

Compensation – Due Date – As per Section 4A(1) and 4A(3)(a) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, compensation is due immediately upon death of employee – Interest at 12% per annum payable from date of accident [Paras 4.1-5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order modified – Interest on compensation to be paid from date of incident [Para 6].