Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Wakf Property – Dispute concerning the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain suits involving Wakf property – Appellants challenged the order returning the plaint on grounds that Civil Courts lacked jurisdiction – High Court upheld the bar on Civil Court jurisdiction based on Section 85 of the Rajasthan Wakf Act, 1995 – Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Sections 6, 7, and 85 of the Act, noting that pending suits at the time of the Act’s commencement are not barred – Held that Civil Courts retain jurisdiction over the present suit initiated prior to the Act – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-25].

Wakf Tribunal Jurisdiction – Interpretation of Sections 6, 7, and 85 of Rajasthan Wakf Act – Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes specified in these sections – Supreme Court emphasizes the necessity of a Tribunal's role in determining questions related to Wakf property – However, existing suits filed before the Act are not subjected to this bar – Ensures continuity of jurisdiction for pre-existing suits in Civil Courts [Paras 10-22].

Civil Procedure – Suit for Possession and Rent – Matters involving possession and rent related to Wakf property fall under Civil Court jurisdiction – Matters such as removal of trustees and rendition of accounts are within the Tribunal’s domain – Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Civil Court jurisdiction vis-a-vis Wakf Tribunal jurisdiction, providing a nuanced approach for overlapping issues [Paras 18-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Direction to Civil Court to proceed with the suit – Recognizes the distinction between pre- and post-enactment suits under the Rajasthan Wakf Act, ensuring legal clarity and procedural fairness [Para 24-25].

Election Law – Candidate Definition – Appellant contended that Jaswant Singh, whose nomination was rejected, should be regarded as a "candidate" under Section 82(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Supreme Court examined Sections 79(b) and 82(b) of the Act – Held that a person whose nomination is rejected due to disqualification cannot be considered "duly nominated" and thus is not a "candidate" for the purposes of Section 82(b) [Paras 2-10].

Non-Joinder of Party – Corrupt Practice Allegation – High Court ruled that non-joinder of Jaswant Singh, against whom corrupt practice allegations were made, did not affect the validity of the election petition – Supreme Court upheld this decision, differentiating the present case from precedents where duly nominated candidates had withdrawn – Emphasized that disqualified individuals do not fall under the definition of "candidate" [Paras 3-9].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court correctly interpreted the statutory provisions – No order as to costs [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Charge Sheet – High Court of Andhra Pradesh quashed the charge sheet against Umesh Kumar in part, relating to Section 468 IPC – Supreme Court examined the procedural aspects and material evidence – Held that material obtained illegally can be admissible if genuine and relevant – High Court’s order deemed not final; trial court can alter charges under Section 216 CrPC based on evidence during the trial [Paras 1-25].

Mala Fides and Legitimate Prosecution – Allegations against Respondent No. 2 regarding disproportionate assets not investigated by State – Supreme Court directs CBI to investigate the allegations – Emphasizes that malice in the initiation of proceedings does not vitiate prosecution if substantial evidence exists [Paras 26-33].

Procedure and Jurisdiction – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Inherent powers of High Courts should not be used to stifle legitimate prosecution – High Court’s premature quashing of charge sheet criticized – Direction for trial court to proceed with Umesh Kumar’s case while allowing alteration of charges based on trial evidence [Paras 12-25].

Decision – Appeals disposed of – Supreme Court directs CBI to investigate allegations against V. Dinesh Reddy for disproportionate assets – Trial court to proceed with Umesh Kumar’s case as per guidelines provided [Paras 33-34].

Municipal Authority – Parking Fees – Appellant Nagar Panchayat imposed parking fees on motor vehicles using its bus stand – High Court ruled against the Nagar Panchayat – Supreme Court examined the authority under Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act 1961 and relevant constitutional provisions – Held Nagar Panchayat has the authority to levy parking fees under Section 358(7)(m) and in light of Article 243W read with Entry 17 of the Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution [Paras 1-14].

Constitutional Provisions – Powers of Municipalities – Article 243W(a)(i) and (ii) empowers municipalities to function as self-governing institutions and perform functions listed in the Twelfth Schedule, including provision of public amenities like bus stands – Supreme Court emphasized the importance of municipalities generating revenue for maintaining public amenities [Paras 7-9].

Precedent – Distinguishing Earlier Judgments – Earlier Supreme Court judgments in Municipal Council Bhopal and Municipal Council Manasa pertained to demands made prior to the 74th Constitutional Amendment – Supreme Court clarified that these precedents do not apply post-amendment and in light of the specific statutory provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court judgments set aside – Resolution passed by Nagar Panchayat imposing parking fees upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 15].

Medical Education – Revocation of Permission – MCI revoked permission for additional intake of students due to deficiencies and irregularities found during inspections – Supreme Court upheld MCI's decision, noting substantial evidence of misconduct and use of fabricated documents – Emphasized the importance of maintaining standards in medical education and the need for strict compliance with regulations [Paras 1-20, 30-36].

Natural Justice – Right to Hearing – Appellants claimed revocation was without a fair hearing – Supreme Court found sufficient grounds for MCI's action based on CBI investigation revealing fraudulent practices – Held that immediate action was justified given the gravity of the allegations and the need to protect educational standards [Paras 21-27].

Public Interest – Ensuring Educational Standards – Court highlighted the growing unethical practices in technical and medical education, such as capitation fees and lack of proper facilities – Called for stronger legislative measures to curb such practices and ensure quality education – Encouraged prompt legislative action to address these issues [Paras 24, 38-42].

Decision – Petition dismissed – MCI's revocation of permission for the additional intake of students upheld – Urged legislative action to address unethical practices in educational institutions [Paras 43].

Railway Service – Medically Decategorised Driver – Entitlement to Allowance – Appellant, a medically decategorised driver working as a Crew Controller, claimed allowance in lieu of kilometerage (ALK) – Tribunal ruled against appellant; High Court ruled in favor – Supreme Court reversed High Court, ruling no ALK for medically decategorised drivers performing stationary duties [Paras 1-12].

Running Allowance Rules – Applicability – Defined running duties as directly connected with train movement – Medically decategorised drivers performing stationary duties not eligible for ALK – Running Allowance includes kilometerage allowance and ALK, applicable only to staff directly engaged in train movement or temporarily on stationary duties [Paras 4-9].

Section 47 of Disabilities Act – Compliance – Protection of pay and service benefits for medically decategorised drivers – Pay element of Running Allowance protected, ALK not justified as additional benefit [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order granting ALK set aside – Medically decategorised drivers performing stationary duties not entitled to ALK [Para 12].

Pension – Qualifying Service – Respondent served in the Department of Education, Punjab, before joining the Punjab School Education Board – Respondent's service in the Board made pensionable under the 1991 Regulations – Respondent claimed pension considering combined service in both departments – Board rejected the claim, stating only those joining the Board on transfer or deputation are eligible [Paras 2-6].

High Court Decision – High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the Board to count service in the Department of Education as qualifying service for pension – Board appealed to Supreme Court [Para 7].

Notification Consideration – Similar issue in SLP (C) No. 11837 of 2008, Supreme Court granted benefit to a similarly placed pensioner based on notification dated 17.03.2011 – Notification applied retrospectively for employees appointed before 1.1.2004 [Para 8].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Respondent entitled to benefit under notification dated 17.03.2011 – Service in both departments to be counted for pension eligibility [Para 9].

Voluntary Retirement – Regulation Compliance – Appellant sought voluntary retirement under VRS after 20 years of service – Application required a three-month notice as per Regulation 12 of the Service Regulations – Appellant failed to provide the notice, leading to rejection of the application – High Court upheld the rejection [Paras 1-6].

Employment Law – Abandonment of Service – Appellant ceased attending work post-application for VRS, joining another company – Court ruled this as voluntary abandonment of service, negating need for formal termination by employer – Absence from duty leading to automatic end of service bonds without employer’s action [Paras 8-11].

Approval and Compliance – Regulation 12(b) mandates approval of competent authority for voluntary retirement – Approval involves discretion and confirmation, not given in appellant’s case – Negative equality argument under Article 14 rejected, non-compliance with procedural requirements led to rightful rejection [Paras 6-7].

Legal Precedents – Court cited various cases to support the principle that prolonged unauthorized absence implies abandonment of service, and employment bonds terminate automatically without the need for employer’s formal action [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Petitions dismissed – Appellant’s claims rejected due to non-compliance with required notice period and voluntary abandonment of service – Payment offered by respondents to settle claims accepted by appellant’s counsel in court, final settlement achieved [Paras 14-15].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Approval of Charge Memo – Appellants challenged CAT and High Court decisions quashing charge sheets issued to respondents, arguing that approval for initiation of proceedings implied approval of charge memo – Supreme Court upheld CAT and High Court rulings, stating that explicit approval of charge memo by disciplinary authority (Finance Minister) is required under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules [Paras 1-50].

Delegation and Authority – Interpretation of Rules – Article 311 of the Constitution and Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules mandate disciplinary proceedings and charge memo approval by the appointing authority or its delegate – Supreme Court emphasized that charge memo must be explicitly approved by the Finance Minister to ensure compliance with procedural safeguards and natural justice [Paras 39-43].

Office Order No. 205/2005 – Administrative Procedure – Office order mandates Finance Minister’s approval for charge memo issuance – Supreme Court rejected argument that initiation approval suffices, clarifying procedural distinctness and necessity of explicit charge memo approval to prevent administrative overreach and uphold statutory compliance [Paras 41-43].

Delegatus Non-Potest Delegare – Principle Application – Court reaffirmed that delegated authority (Finance Minister) cannot re-delegate approval powers for charge memo to subordinate authorities unless explicitly provided by statute – Approval for initiation does not equate to approval of charge memo [Paras 43-44].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Charge sheets quashed due to lack of explicit approval by Finance Minister – Liberty granted to appellants to initiate appropriate action per law [Para 50].