Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Jurisdictional Error – High Court erred in acting as an appellate court on merits – Departmental inquiry found respondent guilty of misconduct based on preponderance of evidence – Tribunal's findings on fraud and forgery upheld – Evidence led by the bank sufficient – High Court's remittance to Tribunal for expert opinion unnecessary – Appeal allowed [Paras 14-20].

Standard of Proof – Departmental vs. Criminal Proceedings – Standard of proof in departmental inquiries lower than criminal proceedings – Preponderance of probability sufficient – Handwriting expert not essential when sufficient evidence exists – Legal precedent supports lower standard for disciplinary actions [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Industrial Tribunal's award upheld – Respondent's dismissal from service justified and proportionate to misconduct.

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder of Minor Girl – Sentencing – Appellant convicted for the offences under IPC and POCSO Act, sentenced to death by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court – Supreme Court commuted death sentence to life imprisonment, taking into account restorative justice principles and mitigating circumstances – Sentence of imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of life imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant's natural life for the offence under Section 376A IPC [Paras 36-45].

Restorative Justice – Opportunity for Rehabilitation – Supreme Court emphasized giving offenders an opportunity to repair the damage caused and become socially useful individuals – Balancing retributive and restorative justice principles in sentencing [Paras 43].

Circumstantial Evidence – Doctrine of Last Seen – Prosecution proved that the appellant was last seen with the victim, and there was no plausible explanation from the appellant for the victim's condition – DNA evidence confirmed appellant's involvement – Conviction upheld based on circumstantial evidence and corroborating medical reports [Paras 23-32].

Fair Trial – Right to Legal Representation – Supreme Court noted that the trial court provided legal assistance to the appellant, ensuring a fair trial – No evidence suggesting procedural unfairness or deprivation of legal rights [Paras 33-35].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Death sentence commuted to imprisonment for a period of twenty years for the offence under Section 376A IPC – Conviction and sentence for other offences under IPC and POCSO Act affirmed – All punishments to run concurrently [Paras 43-45].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – High Court’s Duty – High Court must reappreciate entire evidence in detail in a first appeal against acquittal – General observations without detailed reappreciation inadequate – Presumption of innocence strengthened by trial court’s acquittal – Appeal allowed for reconsideration [Paras 1-8].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Powers of High Court – High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 378 CrPC – High Court entitled to reappreciate evidence independently – Presumption of innocence continues at appellate stage – High Court’s failure to reappreciate entire evidence constitutes a jurisdictional error [Para 6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Matter remanded back to High Court for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law.

Civil Procedure – Summary Suit – Leave to Defend – General Rule and Exception – Leave to defend should be granted unless the defendant has no substantial defence – Denial of leave is exceptional – Appellant raised triable issues regarding liability – High Court erred in denying leave – Appeal allowed with leave to defend granted [Paras 1-21].

Legal Interpretation – Order 37 Rule 3 CPC – Principles for Leave to Defend – Triable issues and fair defence entitle the defendant to unconditional leave – Conditions may be imposed if defence appears plausible but improbable – Denial of leave justified only if defence is frivolous or vexatious [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court and Trial Court judgments set aside – Appellant granted leave to defend – Trial Court to proceed with the trial, considering the appellant’s deposit of Rs. 40,00,000 as per Supreme Court's interim order.

Criminal Law – Bail – Cancellation – Circumstantial Evidence – Seriousness of Offense – High Court's order granting bail without considering material evidence and gravity of the offense erroneous – Accused conspired with others to murder his wife for insurance money – Evidence shows call records and monetary motives – Bail granted on weak grounds reversed [Paras 1-10].

Legal Principles – Bail Considerations – Judicial Discretion – Factors for Granting Bail – Bail decisions must consider the nature of charges, severity of punishment, risk of absconding, and potential tampering with evidence – High Court failed to apply these principles adequately [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's bail order set aside – Respondent to surrender within one week – Trial to proceed based on evidence without influence from bail decision.

Service Law – Issuance of NOC – Appellant was appointed as a JBT Teacher in 2000 – Haryana Public Service Commission advertised 1647 posts of Assistant Professor (College Cadre) in Haryana on 16.02.2016 – Appellant applied for the post of Assistant Professor (History) and requested a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the appointing authority – Despite applying timely for the NOC, it was not issued, and appellant's interviews were conducted provisionally – High Court's interim order allowed the interview without NOC – Appellant provisionally selected but final appointment withheld due to lack of NOC – NOC issued post-selection, but appointments already made – High Court dismissed appellant’s writ petitions for appointment despite provisional selection – Supreme Court found no fault of the appellant and attributed the delay to the employer – Held, appellant entitled to appointment, and respondent No.4, already appointed, to be accommodated without displacement [Paras 1-8].

Procedure – Fault on Part of Employer – Supreme Court recognized that delay in issuing NOC was solely due to employer's inaction – Appellant had no fault and had applied for NOC within stipulated time – Interim relief granted by High Court was adequate but not fulfilled timely by employer – Supreme Court invoked Article 142 for substantial justice [Paras 7-7.4].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of the High Court set aside – State directed to issue appointment order to appellant within two weeks – Appellant entitled to continuity in service but not back wages – Respondent No.4 to be accommodated on another vacant post without displacement [Para 8].

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Appellant convicted for the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl – Trial court awarded the death penalty, which was upheld by the High Court – Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment for a period of 30 years without remission – Emphasized the need to consider the possibility of rehabilitation and reformation, given the appellant’s age, socio-economic background, and lack of prior criminal antecedents – Found procedural lapses in ensuring a fair trial [Paras 1-19].

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Section 354(3) CrPC mandates that death sentences should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases with special reasons recorded – Supreme Court reiterated the principle that awarding the death sentence is an exception and life imprisonment is the rule – Highlighted that the brutality of the crime alone is not sufficient for death penalty; the criminal's socio-economic background, mental state, and potential for reform must be considered – Appellant’s death sentence commuted to life imprisonment due to lack of evidence foreclosing reformation [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment for 30 years without remission – Noted the appellant’s young age, Scheduled Tribe background, and absence of previous criminal record – Directed that all mitigating factors must be considered before imposing the death penalty [Para 19].

Civil Procedure – Ex parte Decree – Appellants filed suit for declaration and possession – Trial Court passed ex parte decree – Respondent (defendant) preferred an appeal with a delay of 2 years and 7 months – First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal due to absence of delay condonation – High Court erroneously quashed both First Appellate Court’s dismissal and Trial Court’s ex parte decree – Supreme Court found High Court's procedure unsustainable, noting the appeal was regarding the First Appellate Court’s dismissal, not an Order IX Rule 13 CPC application [Paras 1-8].

Appellate Procedure – Delay Condonation – High Court's role in appellate procedure – High Court should have set aside First Appellate Court's dismissal for limitation and remanded the appeal for merit-based decision – High Court's direct quashing of the Trial Court’s decree was procedurally incorrect – First Appellate Court directed to revive the delay condonation application and proceed accordingly [Paras 5-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Matter remanded to First Appellate Court to restore appeal – Respondent permitted to revive delay condonation application – First Appellate Court to decide delay condonation and, if granted, proceed on merits – Procedural guidance provided for subsequent appellate actions if delay is not condoned [Para 8].

Insolvency Law – Resolution Applicant Eligibility – Sections 29A and 29A(h) of the IBC – Supreme Court held that "such creditor" in Section 29A(h) should be interpreted to include all similarly placed creditors after the initiation of the insolvency resolution process – The disqualification under Section 29A(h) is triggered by the existence of an enforceable guarantee that has been invoked by any creditor – The Court emphasized that the ineligibility pertains to the participation in the resolution process of the corporate debtor, ensuring a fair and transparent process [Paras 1-33, 53].

Statutory Interpretation – Purposive Interpretation – Court reiterated the principle of purposive interpretation, emphasizing that statutes must be construed to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy – The interpretation must align with the legislative intent and the overall objectives of the IBC, which aims to ensure a fair insolvency resolution process and prevent unscrupulous elements from participating [Paras 34-42].

Decision – Appeals allowed – The resolution plan submitted by the ineligible applicant was not maintainable under Section 29A(h) – However, considering the substantial progress in the implementation of the resolution plan, the Court decided not to disrupt the ongoing operations of the respondent – Plan implementation to continue to protect the interests of shareholders, employees, and ongoing projects [Paras 57-65].