Civil Procedure – Partition and Separate Possession – Appeal against High Court’s judgment declaring the shares of parties in suit properties – High Court set aside trial court’s finding that suit properties were self-acquired – Decreed properties as joint family properties and determined shares accordingly – Supreme Court upholds High Court’s findings and share apportionment [Paras 1-17].

Joint Family Property – Determination – Evidence showed properties purchased in the name of minor Kunnaiah and his mother with no proof of self-acquisition – Properties derived from ancestral estate sales – High Court correctly identified properties as joint family properties [Paras 9-12].

Will – Validity and Effect – Will executed by late Kunnaiah bequeathing properties to Defendant No. 3 challenged – High Court held Kunnaiah could not bequeath joint family properties without co-parceners' consent – Will found non-binding on co-parceners [Paras 13-14].

Shares Allocation – Equal Distribution – High Court allocated shares: sons (Defendants 1-4) and father (late Kunnaiah) entitled to 1/5th each – Daughters and son of predeceased daughter entitled to 1/50th share each from father’s 1/5th share – Supreme Court affirms equitable distribution [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – High Court’s judgment affirmed – Suit properties declared joint family properties – Shares apportioned as per High Court’s determination – Appeal lacks merit and dismissed with no order as to costs [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Rape and Criminal Intimidation – Appellant convicted under Sections 376(1) and 506 Part II IPC – Prosecutrix's testimony consistent and corroborated by medical evidence – No evidence provided by appellant to counter allegations – Supreme Court upholds conviction and sentence imposed by trial court and affirmed by High Court [Paras 1-18].

Prosecutrix’s Testimony – Reliability and Consistency – Testimony of P.W. 2 (prosecutrix) detailed and consistent – Supported by immediate reporting to witnesses and medical examination – No contradictions affecting credibility found [Paras 2-6, 13-14].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Examination by Dr. Manju Saxena (P.W. 1) revealed torn hymen and signs of recent intercourse – Medical findings consistent with prosecutrix's account of rape – No fresh injuries noted due to washing prior to examination [Paras 4-5, 15-16].

Defense and Cross-Examination – Appellant’s Denial – Appellant's denial under Section 313 CrPC without substantiating evidence – No motive suggested for false implication – Cross-examination did not discredit prosecutrix's testimony [Paras 3, 12, 17].

Legal Precedent – Evaluation of Rape Victim’s Testimony – Reference to State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh – Courts should not demand corroboration of victim's testimony unless discrepancies are fatal – Victim's testimony given significant weight as reliable evidence [Paras 14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Conviction and sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine affirmed – No grounds for interference found by Supreme Court [Paras 18].

Forest Law – Classification of Private Forest – The main issue is whether land not classified as private forest under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, can be regulated under the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 – High Court ruled against the State’s notification under Section 5 of the Preservation of Trees Act, as the land did not qualify as private forest – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision, confirming that land declared outside the purview of private forest cannot be subjected to the total prohibition of tree cutting under Section 5 of the Preservation of Trees Act [Paras 1-28].

Regulatory Measures under Preservation of Trees Act – Emphasis on distinction between total prohibition under Section 5 and regulatory provisions under Section 4 – Even if land is excluded from Section 5, it remains subject to restrictions on cutting specific tree species under Section 4, requiring prior permission from authorized officers [Paras 27-28].

Decision – Special Leave Petitions dismissed – No order as to costs – Clarification provided that while total prohibition under Section 5 does not apply, the regulatory framework under Section 4 remains enforceable for specified tree species [Paras 28-29].

Public Sector Employment – Disproportionate Punishment – Appellant, a tradesman at the Kakarapar Atomic Power Project, was removed from service for unauthorized communication with the press and criticizing project management – Supreme Court examined whether the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct – The appellant admitted to charges, pleaded for leniency, and claimed to be acting in public interest – Court held that the punishment was not disproportionate given the sensitivity of the nuclear power project and the need for confidentiality – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-37].

Whistleblower Protection – Criteria and Standards – Court distinguished between legitimate whistleblowers and those acting with ulterior motives – Emphasized that whistleblowers must act with high moral and ethical standards and in public interest – Appellant did not meet these standards as his actions caused panic and included allegations of widespread corruption without sufficient basis – Appellant’s actions were deemed to be seeking publicity rather than furthering public good [Paras 28-35].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – Reviewed the process and findings of disciplinary proceedings – Reiterated that judicial review is directed against the decision-making process, not the decision itself – Proportionality of punishment reviewed under the doctrine of irrationality and perversity – Held that there was no perversity or grave injustice in the decisions of the lower courts [Paras 25-27, 36].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Court found no merit in the claim that the punishment was disproportionate or that the appellant was acting as a bona fide whistleblower – No order as to costs [Para 37].

Civil Service Law – Deemed Suspension – Appellant, a Soil Conservation Officer, was placed under suspension in 1998 during a disciplinary proceeding – Suspension was revoked in 1999, but appellant was removed from service in 2003 – High Court quashed the removal order in 2008 for breach of natural justice – Government placed appellant under deemed suspension from the original date of removal per Rule 12(4) of OCS (CCA) Rules – Supreme Court upheld the application of Rule 12(4) for cases where penalties are set aside by courts for technical reasons without affecting the merits of the case [Paras 2-15].

Proportionality and Technical Grounds – High Court’s decision based on procedural impropriety led to reinstatement of disciplinary proceedings – Rule 12(4) correctly invoked to ensure continuity of suspension from the date of the original removal order – Court rejected the argument that the rule should only apply if the appellant was under suspension at the time of removal [Paras 10-12].

Judicial Review – Scope and Validity – Reviewed constitutionality and applicability of suspension rules – Distinguished between cases set aside on merits and those on technical grounds – Deemed suspension valid under Rule 12(4) even if initial suspension was not in place at removal – Rule does not violate Articles 14 and 16 as it addresses specific procedural circumstances [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court found no merit in the appellant’s contention against the deemed suspension – Affirmed that the procedural framework under Rule 12(4) was appropriately applied [Para 15].

Labour Law – Reinstatement and Procedural Compliance – Appellant, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, terminated respondent (bus conductor) for misconduct without seeking prior approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act – Tribunal found misconduct proven but ordered reinstatement due to procedural non-compliance – Supreme Court held that once misconduct is proven in a Section 33A complaint, the termination should be upheld – Reinstatement order set aside despite procedural breach [Paras 1-22].

Industrial Disputes Act – Section 33A Complaint – Tribunal treated the complaint as a reference under Section 10, leading to full adjudication – Misconduct proven in both civil and industrial tribunal proceedings – The employer-employee relationship deemed to have ended from the dismissal date upon proven misconduct – Procedural breach under Section 33(2)(b) does not warrant reinstatement if misconduct is established [Paras 15-19].

Judicial Review – Scope of Tribunal’s Authority – Tribunal and High Court erred in ordering reinstatement despite proven misconduct – Court emphasized substance over procedural lapses – Employer’s failure to seek prior approval under Section 33(2)(b) does not invalidate termination when misconduct is adjudicated and established [Paras 10-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Supreme Court set aside High Court and Tribunal orders of reinstatement – Complaint under Section 33A dismissed, maintaining termination due to proven misconduct – No order as to costs [Paras 22].

Promotion in Public Employment – Criteria and Exclusions – Central Government issued rules for promotion in Regional Rural Banks based on seniority-cum-merit – Bank circulars excluded employees with 'D' rating in annual performance reports or penalized for misconduct from promotion – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s quashing of circulars, ruling they supplant statutory rules by imposing additional eligibility criteria not specified in the rules – Determination of minimum merit is a function of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), not the management [Paras 1-42].

Statutory Rules vs. Administrative Instructions – Circulars issued by banks to supplement statutory rules on promotions cannot override or modify the rules – Statutory rules must be followed as enacted – Administrative instructions can fill gaps but cannot introduce new eligibility criteria absent in the statutory framework – DPC is responsible for assessing minimum merit through written tests, interviews, and performance appraisals, considering past misconduct as part of service records [Paras 27-32, 36-38].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – Courts emphasized adherence to statutory rules in employment matters – Administrative circulars conflicting with statutory rules are invalid – Promotion must be based on established criteria of seniority-cum-merit, ensuring fair consideration of all eligible candidates within the zone of consideration [Paras 29-31, 34-35].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court’s decision to quash bank circulars upheld – Directions issued for considering promotion in accordance with statutory rules without additional exclusions imposed by the circulars – No order as to costs [Paras 41-42].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Inconsistencies and Reliability of Witnesses – Appellants convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and acquitted under Section 201 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act – Prosecution relied on eyewitnesses whose statements were inconsistent with each other and with medical evidence – Medical evidence showed no firearm injuries despite witnesses alleging shots fired – Supreme Court found major inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in the prosecution’s case, questioning the reliability of the witnesses [Paras 1-17].

Judicial Review – Impact of Deficient Investigation – Investigating agency failed to produce crucial Sanha Entry and did not send seized articles to Forensic Science Laboratory – Incompetent investigation led to suppression of initial police report and crucial evidence – Supreme Court held that lapses in investigation, when affecting the core of the prosecution’s case, warrant acquittal [Paras 10, 17-19].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside due to major inconsistencies in witness testimonies and unreliable prosecution evidence – Directed the release of appellants unless required in any other case [Para 19].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Supreme Court Order – The appellant filed a contempt petition in the Bombay High Court against the State of Maharashtra for not complying with the Supreme Court’s order to pay 11% interest on a refunded amount – The High Court dismissed the petition, stating it lacked jurisdiction to enforce a Supreme Court order and such issues should be addressed by the Supreme Court itself – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, confirming that only the Supreme Court can entertain contempt petitions for its orders [Paras 1-5].

Jurisdiction and Authority – Enforcement of Supreme Court Orders – Supreme Court emphasized that orders and directions issued by it must be enforced through appropriate proceedings before the Supreme Court – The appellant wrongly approached the High Court and should seek remedies directly from the Supreme Court [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court found no infirmity in the High Court’s decision – Appellant given liberty to approach the Supreme Court for initiating appropriate proceedings for compliance with the original order [Paras 6-7].