Service Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — Quantum of Punishment — Parity — Co-delinquents of Different Ranks — Respondent, a Senior Manager (MMGS-III), was dismissed from service after being found guilty of conniving with a co-delinquent officer and a gunman to misappropriate customer funds — The disciplinary authority imposed compulsory retirement on the gunman and reduction by two pay stages on the officer — The Single Judge modified dismissal to compulsory retirement on the ground of parity under Article 14, affirmed by the Division Bench — Held: Parity of punishment cannot be claimed merely because charges arise from the same transaction; differentiation in rank and degree of responsibility are compelling grounds for imposing a more stringent punishment on a higher-ranking official — Authority carries accountability; the higher the authority, the higher the accountability — Equating a branch manager of a bank with its gunman is in outrageous defiance of logic and reason [Paras 12–15].

Service Law — Judicial Review — Quantum of Punishment — Scope — Courts must exercise restraint while interdicting orders of punishment in disciplinary proceedings; the disciplinary authority is the best judge of the requirements of maintaining discipline — Interference is warranted only if no reasonable person would impose the punishment in question, or such punishment shocks the conscience of the court — When the court finds punishment disproportionate, it must either remit the matter for reconsideration or, in the rarest of cases, substitute punishment with cogent reasons — Mere statement of disproportionality without reasons amounts to denial of justice — Held: The punishment of dismissal imposed on a Senior Manager for misappropriation of customer funds is neither disproportionate nor shocks conscience; interference by the High Court was uncalled for [Paras 7–11, 14, 17].

Article 14 — Equality — Disciplinary Punishment — Discrimination — Where co-delinquents hold different ranks and exercise different degrees of authority and responsibility, differential punishment does not offend Article 14 — Held: The respondent's higher rank necessarily entailed a higher degree of responsibility and integrity, including supervision of subordinates; the co-delinquents having limited powers could not be equated with the respondent; grant of benefit of parity by the High Court was entirely misconceived [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Impugned order of Division Bench and order of Single Judge set aside — Punishment of dismissal from service restored.

Criminal Law – Murder – Burning of Wife – Concurrent Conviction – Dying Declaration – Reliability – The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 342 IPC by the Sessions Judge, Bundi and sentenced to life imprisonment with rigorous imprisonment of one year respectively – High Court confirmed the conviction – Appellant challenged concurrent findings on the ground that the magistrate who recorded the dying declaration had noted that the deceased was not in a position to give a statement and that the certificate of mental fitness was obtained on a blank paper – Held: Scope of interference in concurrent findings of conviction is restricted to cases where the courts below have committed manifest errors in law, misdirected themselves in appreciating evidence, or completely missed crucial pieces of evidence – On examination of the Magistrate's (PW-12) deposition, nowhere did the officer state that the deceased was not of sound mind – The duty doctor (PW-15) examined the condition of the deceased before certifying her fitness to make a statement – The fact that the medical certificate was on the reverse of the same paper as the dying declaration does not affect its sanctity [Paras 7–12].

Dying Declaration – Evidentiary Value – Consistency with Medical Evidence – Eyewitnesses Turning Hostile – The deceased's dying declaration (Exhibit P-20) recorded in question-answer format by the Magistrate was found consistent with the medical evidence adduced by PW-9 and PW-10, both of whom deposed that the deceased died due to septicaemia caused by burning – Eyewitnesses PW-2 and PW-3 turned hostile and supported the prosecution case – Held: Where the dying declaration is consistent with medical evidence, the testimony of hostile eyewitnesses loses significance in undermining the prosecution's case – A medical jurist's testimony cannot be disregarded merely because he was not a practicing doctor, provided he was qualified and his testimony was consistent with the treating medical officer [Paras 12, 13].

Dying Declaration – Allegation of Tutoring – Bald Assertion – Not Accepted – The appellant contended before the trial court that the parents of the deceased had tutored her into making the dying declaration – Held: Such submission was a bald assertion which was rightly rejected by the trial court – No material was brought to establish tutoring either in examination-in-chief or in cross-examination [Para 11].

Postscript – Violence Against Women – Persistence Despite Legislative and Judicial Reforms – The Court noted that the offence was of the year 2012, by which time the Constitution and numerous legislative measures had been in operation for decades – Despite the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 498-A IPC, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, and a series of significant judicial pronouncements expanding women's rights, NCRB data shows more than 4.48 lakh crimes against women were recorded in 2023 and dowry-related violence continues to claim over 6,000 lives annually – Held: The coexistence of legal progress and persistent violence signals a deep paradox — legal and economic advancements are visible on a macro level but patriarchy still permeates the everyday — practices such as domestic abuse persist not as aberrations but as indications of a disease-afflicted social order — the answer to why control over women's bodies and choices still persists lies only with "We, the People of India" [Paras 14–18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed — Concurrent conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 342 IPC confirmed — Pending applications disposed of.

Contract Law — Termination and Blacklisting — Distinct Standards of Judicial Review — Blacklisting Order Set Aside for Violation of Natural Justice — Termination Upheld — While exercising judicial review over administrative actions relating to termination and/or blacklisting of contractors, courts must apply distinct standards of legality, rationality and proportionality, as the conditions for imposing such measures and the consequences thereof differ in gravity — Termination of contract upheld on merits, blacklisting order set aside for patent infirmities including failure to issue a specific show-cause notice for blacklisting and absence of application of mind — Held: Termination and blacklisting are independent decisions operating in separate dimensions; a decision of blacklisting is not the automatic or logical consequence of a decision of termination [Paras 2–4, 18].

Blacklisting — Natural Justice — Requirement of Specific Show-Cause Notice — Rule 10.5 of Contractor Registration Rules, 2012 — The show-cause notice dated 04.06.2024 was issued in the context of explaining negligence and did not purport to be a notice proposing blacklisting — Even accepting the Department's argument that the notice served dual purpose, it fell short of the requirement of a specific, particularised and unambiguous notice indicating the intention to blacklist and calling upon the contractor to show cause against the proposed blacklisting — The final blacklisting order also failed to record reasons why blacklisting became necessary — Held: Show-cause notice and blacklisting order both deficient; blacklisting set aside [Paras 16, 22–23].

Blacklisting — Civil Consequences — Stigmatic and Exclusionary Character — Audi Alteram Partem — A blacklisting order carries severe civil consequences: it deregisters the contractor across all categories (Rule 10.3), stops all subsisting works and forfeits security deposits (Rule 10.4), and bars future government contracts — Such an order assumes the contractor to be an incorrigible entity and cannot be imposed mechanistically; it requires sufficient evidence, clear application of mind and stronger adherence to principles of natural justice — Held: For a show-cause notice to constitute valid basis of a blacklisting order, it must spell out clearly, or its contents must admit of clear inference, that there is intention to blacklist the noticee [Paras 17–20].

Termination — Clause 59 of GCC — Opportunity of Hearing — Termination of contract upheld where findings of negligence were corroborated by multi-level enquiries including inputs from Birsa Institute of Technology and IITs of Delhi, Madras and Bombay — Appellant's offer to reconstruct the collapsed ESR at its own expense treated as an admission of negligence — Held: Appellant had sufficient opportunity at the common hearing, before the Appellate Authority and before the Division Bench; termination unimpeachable on merits and on grounds of due process [Paras 15, 25].

Moulding of Relief — Blacklisting Order — Passage of Time — Although the blacklisting order is set aside, the Court declined to direct fresh show-cause proceedings in view of the fact that more than one and a half years had already elapsed from the date of the order (23.08.2024) without any stay — Held: Order of blacklisting shall cease to operate with immediate effect; directing issuance of fresh show-cause notice would only lead to further litigation [Para 24].

Decision: Civil Appeals partly allowed — Order of termination upheld; order of blacklisting set aside — Blacklisting shall cease to operate with immediate effect.

Public Employment – Selection Process – Physical Endurance and Measurement Test – Absence of Candidate – No Enforceable Right to Rescheduling – Respondent qualified in the first tier of selection for the post of Constable in Delhi Police but remained absent on the scheduled date of the PE&MT (14.01.2024), citing cold, cough, fever, headache, body pain and dizziness – Three representations seeking rescheduling were submitted (13th, 14th and 25th January, 2024), none bearing acknowledgment of receipt – Advertisement expressly stipulated that the PE&MT schedule was final and could not be altered under any circumstances – Held: Non-communication of any decision on the representations, on facts and in the circumstances, did not confer an enforceable right on the respondent to seek rescheduling, nor did it clothe the Tribunal with jurisdiction to direct a fresh opportunity [Paras 5, 6, 8].

Conduct of Candidate – Duty to Report – Respondent's own representation dated 25.01.2024 disclosed that he had reported to the recruitment venue on the morning of 13.01.2024, the day preceding the scheduled PE&MT – Held: Having been mobile on 13.01.2024, the respondent was obligated, at the minimum, to present himself on 14.01.2024, cite his inability, and request rescheduling in person – Abstaining entirely and expecting a second chance demonstrates a lack of drive and initiative, particularly for a candidate aspiring to join the police force – Respondent was rightly marked "ABSENT" [Paras 7, 9, 10].

Discretion in Public Employment – Backward Community – Not a Decisive Factor – Argument that the Tribunal and High Court rightly exercised discretion in favour of the respondent on account of his belonging to the backward community – Rejected – Held: Mere membership of a backward community cannot be the decisive factor for tilting the scales – Grace, charity or compassion ought to stay at a distance in matters of public employment if a fair level playing field is to be secured – Boundaries for exercise of discretion are well carved out and adjudicatory fora ought not to trench beyond them [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 07.07.2025, as upheld by the High Court of Delhi vide order dated 03.09.2025, set aside – Parties to bear their own costs.

Waqf — Dargah — Succession to Office of Sajjadanashin — Nomination by Incumbent — Khilafatnama — Validity — The original Sajjadanashin, Peer Pasha Khadri, nominated his grandson (Respondent No. 1), son of his predeceased eldest son, as Jan-Nasheen Sajjada through Khilafatnama dated 26.02.1981 (Ex. P-72) executed at a religious ceremony in the presence of Sajjadanashins, fakirs, murids and community elders — All three courts concurrently held the nomination valid — Held: The Khilafatnama, read as a whole together with oral evidence and surrounding circumstances, clearly conveyed the incumbent's intention to confer his spiritual authority upon Respondent No. 1 and to designate him as successor; the document constitutes a valid act of nomination [Paras 38–40].

Sajjadanashin — Nature of Office — Spiritual Character — Succession by Nomination — The office of Sajjadanashin is primarily spiritual in character, distinct from the secular office of Mutawalli, and is responsible for preserving the spiritual lineage (silsila), guiding disciples and conducting religious ceremonies — Succession is ordinarily determined by custom, usage or nomination by the incumbent — Held: The prevailing practice of the Dargah recognised nomination by the incumbent Sajjadanashin as a valid mode of succession; there is no rigid rule that the office must invariably devolve upon the eldest living son [Paras 35–37, 43–44].

Interpolation — Allegation of — Burden of Proof — Khilafatnama — Appellant alleged that the word "Jan-Nasheen" was subsequently interpolated in Ex. P-72 — Held: Once the appellant admitted the existence and acceptance of the document, the burden shifted to him to establish the alleged interpolation; the appellant neither effectively cross-examined attesting witnesses on this issue nor sought examination by a handwriting expert; mere suspicion cannot displace a duly proved document; at this stage, sending the document for forensic examination cannot be permitted [Paras 41–42].

Documents Relied upon by Appellant — General Power of Attorney (Ex. D-1), Khilafatnama dated 06.07.1969 (Ex. D-13) and Affidavit (Ex. D-23) — Held: A power of attorney creates only an agency relationship, is co-terminus with the life of the principal and cannot operate as a mode of succession to a religious office — The affidavit is not a valid instrument of nomination in the absence of reliable corroborative evidence that it represented a formal act consistent with the traditions of the institution — Participation in managerial or ceremonial activities of the Dargah does not establish succession to the office of Sajjadanashin [Paras 45–49].

Section 100, CPC — Second Appeal — Jurisdiction — Concurrent Findings of Fact — High Court confined its jurisdiction to examining whether a substantial question of law arose — Concurrent findings of three courts that the office is hereditary, that nomination by the incumbent is recognised practice, and that Ex. P-72 is a valid nomination, are purely factual — Held: No perversity demonstrated; no substantial question of law arises; findings cannot be interfered with in second appeal or under Article 136 unless there is manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice [Paras 31, 53–55].

Rights of Other Stakeholders — Recognition of one individual as Sajjadanashin does not determine or extinguish the independent legal rights of other beneficiaries under Wakf law; the present litigation concerns succession to the office of Sajjadanashin and not proprietary rights of descendants in Wakf property or income [Para 51].

Decision: Civil Appeals dismissed — Concurrent judgments and decrees of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and High Court affirmed — Interim orders vacated.

Contempt of Courts – Criminal Contempt – Safety of Judicial Officers – SIR of Electoral Rolls – Suo Motu Action – Seven judicial officers, including three women, were gheraoed by anti-social elements at the BDO office, Kaliachowk, Maldah District, West Bengal, while discharging duties relating to adjudication of objections under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls — Officers were held without food or water from 3:30 p.m. until after midnight — Their vehicles were pelted with stones and attacked with bamboo sticks and bricks upon release — Held: Such conduct amounts to criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and constitutes a brazen challenge to the authority of this Court — Judicial officers deputed for SIR adjudication function as an extension of this Court [Paras 2, 9, 10, 11].

Judicial Officers – Extension of Supreme Court – Protection of Authority – This Court's order dated 20.02.2026 in W.P.(C) No. 1089/2025 makes clear that judicial officers assigned to adjudicate objections in the SIR process discharge their duties for and on behalf of the Supreme Court — Any obstruction of or intimidation to such officers is, in essence, a challenge to the authority of this Court — The incident is a calculated, well-planned and deliberate act intended to demoralise judicial officers and obstruct the ongoing adjudication process [Paras 9, 10].

State Administration – Failure of Duty – Show Cause – The Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Director General of Police, District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Maldah, failed to take effective action despite being informed of the gherao at 3:30 p.m. — No effective evacuation measures were taken; senior officials arrived at the Chief Justice's residence only after midnight — The Chief Secretary could not be contacted as he had not shared a mobile number with WhatsApp facility — Held: Such conduct is highly deplorable; officials directed to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them [Paras 7, 11, 12, 13(vii)].

Interim Directions – Security of Judicial Officers – ECI and State Government – Pending further hearing, the following directions issued: (i) ECI directed to requisition and deploy adequate central forces at all places where judicial officers are deputed; (ii) adequate security to be provided at residences and hotels where officers and their families are staying; (iii) threat perception of family members to be assessed and remedial measures taken; (iv) not more than 5 persons to be permitted at any premises where objections are filed or adjudicated; (v) compliance report to be submitted by the Chief Secretary, Director General of Police and Chief Electoral Officer; (vi) ECI directed to entrust investigation of the incident to an independent agency such as the CBI or NIA, with a preliminary inquiry report to be submitted directly to this Court [Para 13].

Decision: Suo motu cognisance taken — Interim directions issued for immediate compliance — Show cause issued to Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, District Magistrate, Maldah and Superintendent of Police, Maldah — All concerned officials directed to remain present virtually on 06.04.2026 — Registry directed to forward D.O. letter of the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to all concerned authorities.

Service Law – Pay Commission – Non-Functional Upgradation – Junior Engineers, BRO – Para 7.4.13(iv)(b), Seventh Central Pay Commission – Civil Appeal Dismissed – Junior Engineers of BRO placed at Level 6 (Grade Pay Rs. 4,200/-) upon Sixth Pay Commission recommendations; reached Level 8 (Grade Pay Rs. 4,800/-) through MACP after 20 years of service – Claim for NFU to Level 9 (Grade Pay Rs. 5,400/-) rejected by BRO vide letter dated 19.02.2021 on the ground that entry-level Grade Pay of Junior Engineers was Rs. 4,200/- and not Rs. 4,800/- – Held: Plain reading of Para 7.4.13(iv)(b) stipulates only completion of four years in Level 8 on seniority-cum-suitability basis as the condition precedent for NFU; insistence on entry-level Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- adds a condition not found in the recommendation and amounts to denial of a rightful benefit [Paras 11–13].

Non-Functional Upgradation – Entry Level vs. Milestone Grade Pay – Whether entry to Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- is by promotion or direct recruitment or through MACP is immaterial – The only condition for grant of NFU to Level 9 is completion of four years in Level 8 – Denial of NFU to Junior Engineers while extending the same benefit to Senior Private Secretaries and Assistant Accounts Officers, who have identically completed four years in the milestone Grade Pay, is discriminatory and highly unacceptable – Pay Commission recommendations are advisory but once implemented, denial of benefit to an identically placed cadre without valid reason is unsustainable [Paras 9.2–9.5, 11–13].

Decision: Civil Appeal dismissed – Order of Delhi High Court directing grant of NFU (Grade Pay Rs. 5,400/-) to Junior Engineers upon completion of four years of service in Level 8 upheld – No order as to costs.

FEMA — Section 37A — Seizure Proceedings and Adjudication Proceedings — Independence and Inter-dependence — Competent Authority's Refusal to Confirm Seizure — Effect on Adjudication — The appellants, Directors and family members of M/s. Accord Distilleries & Breweries Pvt. Ltd., were alleged to have acquired and held shares of a Singapore-based foreign entity without RBI approval in violation of Section 4 of FEMA — The Competent Authority, exercising powers under Section 37A(3), refused to confirm seizure of appellants' assets, recording a finding that no proof of payment for shares existed and that the foundational requirement of "reason to believe" was not satisfied — Notwithstanding this, the Adjudicating Authority proceeded with the SCN proceedings, issued a corrigendum and ultimately passed a final adjudication order — Held: The refusal to confirm seizure by the Competent Authority under Section 37A(3) is a substantive evaluation and not an empty formality; such findings necessarily have a bearing on the adjudication proceedings, particularly where the appeal against the order refusing confirmation is still pending [Paras 26–32, 36].

FEMA — Adjudication — Competent Authority's Order — Adjudicating Authority Cannot Override — Appeal Pending — The Adjudicating Authority, while passing the final order under Section 16, extensively relied upon observations of the Division Bench and effectively overrode and contradicted the order of the Competent Authority refusing to confirm seizure, even though the Department's appeal against that order was pending before the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA — Held: Such course of action tantamounts to abdicating the powers of the Appellate Authority and is arbitrary and contrary to law; the Adjudicating Authority could not have undone the order of the Competent Authority while the same was sub judice in appeal [Paras 37–38].

Writ Petition Against Show-Cause Notice — Maintainability — Exceptions to General Rule — The High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of non-maintainability, holding that a writ against an SCN is not entertainable — Held: This proposition is not an inviolable rule; interference at the stage of SCN is permissible in exceptional circumstances such as where the notice suffers from patent lack of jurisdiction, reflects non-application of mind, is issued with a predetermined approach, amounts to abuse of process of law, or results in violation of principles of natural justice — Rejection of challenge to SCN on ground of non-maintainability was not justified in the peculiar facts of the case [Para 32–33].

Division Bench — Observations Prejudicing Appellants — High Court's observations in paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of the impugned judgment impliedly effaced the findings of the Competent Authority refusing to confirm seizure and foreclosed the outcome of the appeal pending before the Appellate Authority — The Adjudicating Authority heavily relied upon these observations in the final adjudication order — Held: Such observations were erroneous and have caused prejudice; they are set aside — Adjudication proceedings revived from stage of SCN [Paras 35–36, 39–40].

Suppression of Facts — Allegation of Concealment — No Merit — Respondents alleged that appellants suppressed the fact of the final adjudication order having been passed — Held: No merit in the contention; pleadings in the civil appeals clearly disclosed that the SCN had culminated in a final adjudication order against which statutory appeals had also been preferred; no deliberate concealment or lack of candour established [Para 24].

Decision: Appeals disposed of — Orders of the Division Bench (23.07.2024) and Single Judge (30.11.2023) of the Madras High Court set aside — Final adjudication order dated 26.08.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority set aside as arbitrary and contrary to law — Appellate Authority directed to decide the Department's appeal against the Competent Authority's order under Section 37A(5) within two months — Adjudication proceedings arising out of SCN to be taken up thereafter to their logical conclusion, uninfluenced by any observations made in the orders set aside.

Bail – Regular Bail – Prolonged Incarceration – Parity with Co-accused – Appellant in custody since 14.01.2023 in connection with FIR No. 219/2022, Police Station Wagle Estate, District Thane City, for offences under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 504, 506, 141, 143 and 149 IPC and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act – Trial yet to commence with thirteen witnesses to be examined – Out of eight accused, five already released on bail, one absconding and only one other accused in custody – Held: Considering the length of incarceration, pendency of trial, and parity with co-accused released on bail, case for bail is made out – Appeal allowed – Appellant directed to be produced before the trial Court for release on bail subject to conditions as the Court deems fit.

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 23.06.2025 in Bail Application No. 837/2025 set aside – Trial Court directed to release appellant on bail subject to such conditions as it may impose to ensure his presence – Appellant directed to cooperate fully in the trial and not misuse liberty – Liberty reserved to the State to seek cancellation of bail in case of any infraction or fresh offence.

Referred Cases: