Seniority – Determination in Government Service – Direct Recruitment vs. Promotion – Dispute between direct recruits and promoted officers regarding seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers – Contention that promoted Sectional Officers, Grade-I, whose posts were upgraded, should not be granted seniority over direct recruits – Held, direct recruits must be granted seniority from the date of their appointment as Junior Engineers, while those promoted after upgradation should be placed based on the date of upgradation – Seniority cannot be assigned retrospectively from a date when the incumbents were not yet in the cadre [Paras 1-16].

Promotion – Upgradation of Posts – Non-Gazetted to Gazetted Status – Posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, upgraded to Junior Engineer (Class-II Gazetted) – Court held that incumbents in upgraded posts cannot claim seniority over those directly recruited to the Junior Engineer cadre – Upgradation should be recognized from the actual date of entry into the cadre, not retrospectively [Paras 10-15].

Judicial Review – Misapplication of Service Rules – High Court misinterpreted service rules and granted undue seniority to promoted Junior Engineers over direct recruits – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision, restoring the seniority list finalized on March 26, 2018 – Emphasized correct interpretation and application of service rules in determining seniority [Paras 13-16].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – The order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside – The seniority list of Junior Engineers as finalized on March 26, 2018, is upheld – No order as to costs.

Seniority – Determination in Government Service – Direct Recruitment vs. Promotion – Dispute between direct recruits and promoted officers regarding seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers – Contention that promoted Sectional Officers, Grade-I, whose posts were upgraded, should not be granted seniority over direct recruits – Held, direct recruits must be granted seniority from the date of their appointment as Junior Engineers, while those promoted after upgradation should be placed based on the date of upgradation – Seniority cannot be assigned retrospectively from a date when the incumbents were not yet in the cadre [Paras 1-16].

Promotion – Upgradation of Posts – Non-Gazetted to Gazetted Status – Posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, upgraded to Junior Engineer (Class-II Gazetted) – Court held that incumbents in upgraded posts cannot claim seniority over those directly recruited to the Junior Engineer cadre – Upgradation should be recognized from the actual date of entry into the cadre, not retrospectively [Paras 10-15].

Judicial Review – Misapplication of Service Rules – High Court misinterpreted service rules and granted undue seniority to promoted Junior Engineers over direct recruits – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision, restoring the seniority list finalized on March 26, 2018 – Emphasized correct interpretation and application of service rules in determining seniority [Paras 13-16].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – The order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside – The seniority list of Junior Engineers as finalized on March 26, 2018, is upheld – No order as to costs.

Demolition of School Building Without Approval – Staff Entitlement to Compensation and Re-employment – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision directing the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to pay the arrears of salary, pension, and other benefits to the staff of a school managed by Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (DSGMC), which was closed without prior approval – The Court held DSGMC liable for reimbursement of these payments to NDMC. DSGMC's appeal was dismissed, and the NDMC was granted the right to seek reimbursement from DSGMC through appropriate legal remedies. [Paras 1-28]

Employment of Surplus Staff – Absorption Rights under Rule 47 – The Supreme Court clarified that the rights of surplus staff to be absorbed in other schools, as per Rule 47 of the Delhi Education Rules, only apply in cases where the school closure was legally compliant. Since DSGMC’s closure was illegal, NDMC was not obligated to absorb the staff or cover their salaries [Paras 17-19].

Contempt of Court – DSGMC’s Non-compliance – The DSGMC's failure to re-employ the displaced staff as directed by the High Court constituted contempt of court. The Supreme Court upheld penalties, including payment of salaries with interest, for non-compliance [Paras 14-15, 23].

Limitation Period – Right to Reimbursement – The Supreme Court affirmed NDMC's right to seek reimbursement from DSGMC for payments made to the school staff. Concerns about the limitation period were dismissed due to prior court directions that preserved NDMC’s right to reimbursement [Paras 23].

Decision: Appeals by DSGMC (Civil Appeal Nos. 7442-7444 of 2012) dismissed. Appeals by NDMC (Civil Appeal Nos. 7440-7441 of 2012) disposed of with instructions for NDMC to pay remaining dues to the staff and pursue reimbursement from DSGMC, with the possibility of joining ongoing contempt proceedings.

Contract Law – Interpretation of Force Majeure Clauses in Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) – Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction under Section 125 of the Electricity Act – Applicability of Force Majeure clause for extension of the Scheduled Commissioning Date (SCD) – Whether the delay in project commissioning due to delayed approvals from governmental authorities falls under force majeure – Held – Delay attributed to governmental authorities, not respondents, thus constituting a force majeure event – No reduction in tariff under the PPA warranted [Paras 1-16].

Scope of Supreme Court’s Appellate Jurisdiction – Examination of the substantial question of law under Section 125 of the Electricity Act – Whether a question of fact decided by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) warrants interference by the Supreme Court – Held – No substantial question of law arises as the APTEL’s findings are neither illegal nor unreasonable, thereby affirming APTEL’s decision on the facts [Paras 7-8, 13].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Held – The appeals are dismissed as no substantial question of law was presented, and the APTEL’s findings are upheld, including the application of the force majeure clause, the extension of SCD, and the restoration of the tariff rate to Rs. 8.40 per unit – The imposition of liquidated damages and reduction in tariff were not justified [Para 15-16].

Consumer Law – Real Estate Transaction – Appeal under Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against NCDRC Order – Supreme Court upheld NCDRC's decision directing refund of Rs. 7,16,41,493 with interest to the respondent for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices – Allegation of double allotment of the flat substantiated, leading to confusion and improper termination of allotment – Appeal dismissed with directions for payment within specified timeline [Paras 1-22].

Definition of Consumer – Clarification of ‘Consumer’ under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Supreme Court reaffirmed that a company purchasing a flat for the residential use of its director and family is a consumer, not involved in commercial activity – NCDRC's reliance on precedents including Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and Crompton Greaves Ltd. deemed appropriate [Paras 11-17].

Unfair Trade Practice – Double Allotment of Flat – Court found the appellant guilty of adopting unfair trade practices due to the double allotment and wrongful forfeiture of deposit – Supreme Court validated NCDRC’s findings of deficiency in service, leading to the cancellation of the allotment and order for refund with interest [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs – Directed partial immediate refund with balance to be paid by December 31, 2024, or to be recovered as arrears of land revenue [Para 22].

Arbitration – Award Interpretation – Contractual Terms – The Arbitrator awarded claims for uneconomic utilization of machinery, interest on delayed payments, and pre-reference interest under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court set aside certain claims, emphasizing the need to adhere to specific contractual prohibitions. The Supreme Court partially restored the Arbitrator's award, holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 37 by substituting its interpretation for that of the Arbitrator and District Judge, particularly regarding claims where the contract did not explicitly bar the award of interest. [Paras 7-10]

Interest – Pre-Reference and Pendente Lite – Arbitration Discretion – The Arbitrator's power to award interest under Section 31(7) was upheld, reaffirming that unless explicitly barred by the contract, an Arbitrator may grant pre-reference, pendente lite, and post-award interest. The High Court erred in modifying the award by disallowing pre-reference interest, which the Arbitrator had lawfully awarded. [Paras 9.4-9.6]

Decision – Appeal Partially Allowed – Held – The appeal was partially allowed with the following outcomes: The award of claim no. 3 (relating to labor charges for uneconomical stoppage of work) was set aside as it violated the Special Terms and Conditions of the contract; the award of claim no. 4 (interest on delayed payment of running account bills) was upheld; and the award of claim no. 6 (interest) was modified to reinstate pre-reference interest as originally granted by the arbitrator. Costs were not awarded, and each party was ordered to bear their own expenses. [Para 10]

Anticipatory Bail – SC/ST Act – Rejection of anticipatory bail by the High Court under Section 438 CrPC for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST Act – Appellant allegedly insulted and humiliated the complainant, a Scheduled Caste MLA, by publishing defamatory content on social media – Supreme Court held that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act imposes a bar on anticipatory bail where prima facie materials indicate the commission of the offence – Complaint sufficiently disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) – Anticipatory bail denied [Paras 1-89].

Prima Facie Case – Intent to Humiliate – Examination of whether the allegations against the appellant reveal an intention to humiliate the complainant on the grounds of his caste – Court emphasized that mere defamatory statements are insufficient unless connected with the victim's caste identity – Content in question implied insult on account of caste – Prima facie case established under SC/ST Act [Paras 53-59, 71-74].

Interpretation of Statutes – Section 18 of SC/ST Act – Court held that the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 is not absolute – Courts have the inherent power to grant anticipatory bail in exceptional cases where no prima facie case is made out – Balance between preventing misuse of the law and protecting the rights of the accused is essential – Judicial scrutiny must ensure that the complaint genuinely discloses the necessary ingredients of the offence under the SC/ST Act [Paras 23-38].

Evidence Evaluation – Prima Facie Case under SC/ST Act – Supreme Court examined whether the content in the video published by the appellant insulted or humiliated the complainant on account of his caste – Court concluded that the allegations did not reveal an intent to humiliate the complainant based on his caste identity – The video content appeared to target the complainant's actions and conduct rather than his caste – Held, the appellant could not be denied anticipatory bail merely on the basis of the complainant's caste [Paras 51-81].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Anticipatory bail application denied – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, emphasizing the necessity to prevent misuse of the SC/ST Act while also ensuring protection of the rights of individuals against whom allegations are made under the Act [Paras 88-90].

Criminal Law – Suo Motu Proceedings in Supreme Court Concerning Rape and Murder of Doctor – Investigation Ordered and Guidelines Issued – The Supreme Court of India initiated suo motu proceedings regarding the alleged rape and murder of a 31-year-old postgraduate doctor at RG Kar Medical College, Kolkata. The Court addressed the lack of institutional safety for medical professionals and issued directives for the formation of a National Task Force (NTF) to create protocols ensuring the safety and well-being of medical professionals in healthcare institutions across India. The investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and detailed guidelines were issued to prevent violence, including gender-based violence, against healthcare workers. [Paras 1-18]

Institutional Safety in Healthcare – Supreme Court Identifies Systemic Failures and Mandates Reforms – The Supreme Court highlighted the systemic failures in providing a safe working environment for medical professionals, particularly in relation to sexual and non-sexual violence. The Court noted that existing state legislations were inadequate as they did not address underlying institutional safety issues. It constituted a National Task Force (NTF) to draft enforceable national protocols aimed at preventing violence and ensuring safe working conditions for medical professionals, with a specific focus on preventing gender-based violence. [Paras 6-12]

Judicial Directions – National Task Force Constituted for Healthcare Worker Safety – The Supreme Court directed the formation of a National Task Force (NTF) comprising medical professionals and government officials to formulate recommendations on preventing violence against healthcare workers and providing dignified working conditions. The NTF was instructed to submit an interim report within three weeks and a final report within two months. Additionally, the Court ordered all state governments and union territories to provide detailed information on the safety measures implemented in their respective healthcare institutions. [Paras 10-16]

Decision – Directions Issued for Investigation and Institutional Reforms – The Supreme Court, while expressing concern over the safety of medical professionals, ordered the CBI to submit a status report on the ongoing investigation by 22 August 2024. The Court also required the West Bengal government to report on the acts of vandalism at RG Kar Medical College Hospital following the incident. The matter was scheduled for further hearing on 22 August 2024. [Paras 17-18]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Summoning Order – Distinction between Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Held – Summoning order under Section 406 IPC by the Magistrate was quashed by the Supreme Court – No prima facie case of criminal breach of trust established against the appellants – Supreme Court emphasized that mere non-payment of dues arising from a commercial transaction does not constitute a criminal offence unless there is clear evidence of dishonest intent at the inception – Remedy lies in civil litigation for recovery of dues, not criminal prosecution – High Court’s dismissal of the petition under Section 482 CrPC was overturned as there was no legal basis for the criminal proceedings [Paras 1-4, 31-40].

Judicial Scrutiny – Issuance of Process – Importance of Prima Facie Case – Held – Issuance of summons is a serious matter and must not be done mechanically – Magistrate must apply mind to ensure allegations constitute an offence before issuing summons – Supreme Court criticized the lower courts for not properly scrutinizing the complaint and evidence before initiating criminal proceedings – Highlighted the need for meticulous examination of the complaint's contents to distinguish between criminal breach of trust and civil breach of contract [Paras 13-23, 41-43].

Criminal Procedure – Powers of the Magistrate under Section 202 CrPC – Explained – Limited scope of inquiry under Section 202 CrPC was reiterated – The Magistrate must ascertain the existence of a prima facie case without delving into the merits or demerits of the case at this stage – The Supreme Court emphasized that the inquiry is not to determine guilt but to decide if there is sufficient ground to proceed with the case – Faulty application of these principles by the Magistrate and High Court led to the quashing of the summoning order [Paras 6-12].

Difference between Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating – Legal Principles – Clarified – The Supreme Court reiterated the distinction between the two offences – Criminal breach of trust involves entrustment of property with dishonest misappropriation, while cheating involves deception from the inception – The Court ruled that these offences cannot coexist under the same set of facts, as they are mutually exclusive – The judgment underscores that the transaction in question did not meet the criteria for either offence under the IPC [Paras 24-30].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of the High Court and Magistrate quashed – Supreme Court directs the Registry to send copies of the judgment to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, and the Home Department to ensure better legal training and understanding of these offences across the country [Paras 44-47].

Criminal Law – Conviction under NDPS Act – Acquittal on Appeal – Appellant convicted under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for allegedly supplying a psychotropic substance, Fortwin injections, for illegal interstate transportation. High Court upheld the conviction; however, the Supreme Court found no admissible evidence linking the appellant to the conspiracy or the supply of the contraband. The appellant’s statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, relied upon by lower courts, was inadmissible based on the precedent set in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, and there was a lack of corroborating evidence. Appeal allowed, and appellant acquitted [Paras 1-14].

Evidence – Admissibility of Section 67 NDPS Act Statements – The Supreme Court reiterated that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible as confessional statements for convicting an accused. The Court emphasized that without any other corroborating evidence or recovery of contraband from the appellant, the conviction could not be sustained. No proper charge of conspiracy under Section 29 was framed, and the essential elements of conspiracy were not proven [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Acquittal – Held – The appeal is allowed, and the appellant is acquitted of all charges. The lack of legal evidence and the inadmissibility of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act led to the setting aside of the conviction. The appellant's bail bonds were canceled as a result of the acquittal [Paras 11-15].