Service Law – Environmental Law – Performance Appraisal Reports – Directions for Appraisal of IFS Officers – Impugned G.O. dated 29th June 2024 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh prescribed IAS officers as reporting/reviewing authorities for Indian Forest Service officers – Challenged for violating Supreme Court’s previous orders and established rules – Held: Up to the rank of APCCF, the reporting/reviewing/accepting authorities must be from within the Forest Department – G.O. found to be in contemptuous violation of previous directions by this Court [Paras 1-3, 34-39].

All-India Services Act, 1951 – Confidential Rolls Rules – Reporting Authority – Rule 2(e), (f), and (a) of the All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 and All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 – Definitions of ‘reporting authority’, ‘reviewing authority’, and ‘accepting authority’ require supervising officer to be higher in rank and preferably from the same department – Impugned G.O. violated statutory scheme and service hierarchy – Court emphasized the need for evaluation by immediate superior within the same service to maintain objectivity and fairness [Paras 9-13, 21, 24, 32-33].

Legal Precedents – P.C. Wadhwa Case – Santosh Bharti Case – Binod Kumar Case – Supreme Court reiterated earlier rulings that confidential reports must be written by superior officers within the same department – Recognized principle of hierarchy and familiarity with work as essential for fair evaluation – Orders of 22 September 2000 and 19 April 2004 in Godavarman case held binding – Government order contrary to these directions held illegal [Paras 22-26, 30-31, 33].

Administrative Practice – Central Empowered Committee Report – Ministry and DoPT Clarifications – Ministry of Environment & Forests and DoPT had issued clarifications directing that officers up to the rank of APCCF must be appraised by superiors within the Forest Department – Comments from IAS officers may be recorded on separate sheets but cannot replace Forest Department’s appraisal – These guidelines were binding on all states – The Court observed that all other states except Madhya Pradesh complied with these directives, reaffirming that departmental superiors must assess IFS officers’ performance [Paras 17-20, 27-29, 35-38].

Interpretation of Supervisory Hierarchy – Superior Rank and Departmental Familiarity – Supreme Court noted that authority under Rules must not only supervise performance but also be in higher rank and from the same department to ensure meaningful evaluation – Discretion under rules cannot override the structural principle of intra-departmental accountability – Court stressed the objective application of hierarchy in performance appraisal systems to prevent demoralization and ensure merit-based advancement [Paras 14-16, 23, 31].

Remedial Action and Institutional Guidance – Scope of Modifications – Attempt by Madhya Pradesh to alter the established scheme through G.O. without seeking clarification/modification from Court deemed improper – Directions issued in previous orders still hold the field – Role of CEC, DoPT, and MoEF reaffirmed as central to policy implementation – Court appreciated fair stand of Solicitor General and amicus curiae support [Paras 28-30, 36-38, 42].

Decision – Applications allowed – G.O. dated 29 June 2024 quashed – State of Madhya Pradesh directed to reframe rules within one month strictly following Court’s previous orders and statutory scheme – Appreciation recorded for Amicus Curiae and Solicitor General for fair assistance [Paras 40-42].

Service Law – Armed Forces – Territorial Army Promotion – Grading Disparity and COAS Discretion – Appellant denied promotion to Colonel despite being eligible and having service of 22 years – Five Selection Boards from 2000 to 2003 graded him as ‘Z’ (unfit), while a co-candidate initially graded ‘Z’ was upgraded to ‘B’ by COAS and promoted – Held: Once COAS exercised reconsideration for one officer, equity demanded similar review for appellant – Direction issued to reconsider appellant’s grading in June 2001 Selection Board [Paras 2-4, 6-7, 10-12].

Defence Services Regulations – Paragraph 108 – Discretion of Chief of Army Staff – COAS has overriding authority to review and alter Selection Board decisions under Para 108(d) and (e) of DSR, 1987 – COAS had altered respondent’s grading but failed to do so for appellant without justification – Held: Discretionary powers must be applied uniformly and not selectively to avoid arbitrary outcomes [Paras 8, 11-12].

Administrative Law – Principles of Fairness – Unequal Consideration in Service Matters – Appellant’s consistent ‘Z’ gradings contrasted with respondent’s selective upgrading – Tribunal upheld non-empanelment but Supreme Court found procedural unfairness – Held: Reconsideration of appellant’s case is warranted to ensure parity and prevent differential treatment [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Direction issued to COAS to reconsider appellant’s grading in June 2001 selection process within three months – If upgraded, consequential consideration for notional promotion and benefits to follow – Remaining Tribunal judgment upheld [Paras 12-14].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Murder Trial – Last Seen Together – Conviction based solely on the theory of ‘last seen together’ without corroborative evidence – Appellant convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC by Trial Court, affirmed by High Court – Supreme Court found chain of evidence incomplete – Held: Last seen theory alone, absent recovery of weapon or conclusive motive, insufficient to sustain conviction – Acquittal granted [Paras 7-9, 15, 18-25].

Evidence Act – Last Seen Theory – Weak Circumstantial Evidence – Witnesses PW-1, PW-2, and PW-13 saw deceased last in the company of appellant – However, no recovery made at appellant’s instance and no admission of guilt – Stone allegedly used in the offence recovered near the body, not via any disclosure under Section 27 Evidence Act – Blood stains found but blood group not matched – Held: Suspicion not sufficient to convict in criminal jurisprudence [Paras 13-18, 22-24].

Motive and Recovery – Absence of Clear Intent or Physical Evidence – Prosecution failed to establish any convincing motive linking the appellant to the murder – Allegations about suspicion over wife’s fidelity speculative and unsupported – No recovery of weapon from accused or based on his confession – No conclusive forensic linkage between the accused and the crime – Held: Conviction cannot rest on conjecture or hypothetical intent [Paras 16-18, 22-23].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Burden of Proof – Chain of Circumstances – Prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence – Contradictions in witness accounts regarding recovery site – Appellant did not abscond, joined search for deceased, and showed no guilty conduct – Held: Circumstantial evidence failed to exclude every hypothesis except guilt – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 10-12, 15-16, 23].

Precedents – Standard for Circumstantial Conviction – Legal principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, Kanhaiya Lal, and Sujit Biswas reiterated – ‘Last seen together’ rule cannot be the sole basis of conviction without supporting evidence – Absence of motive, lack of recovery, and inconclusive forensic analysis undermine prosecution case – Held: Strong suspicion cannot replace legal proof [Paras 12, 20-21, 24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Directed to be released if not required in any other case [Para 25].

Civil Writ – Constitutional Law - Public Authority – Meaning under Article 12 – Air Force School Not a “State” – The Supreme Court held that the Air Force School, though administered by the Indian Air Force Educational and Cultural Society and staffed by IAF personnel, did not satisfy the test of pervasive control by the State – The school is financially autonomous, not directly funded by government grants, and operates under a non-statutory code – Held: The school is not “State” within Article 12 and is not subject to writ jurisdiction [Paras 20–25].

Service Dispute – Contractual Employment – Writ Petition Not Maintainable – Teachers appointed through private contractual arrangements challenged their termination via writ petitions – The Court found that no statutory provisions governed their service and the dispute did not involve public law elements – Held: Remedies lie in private law; writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not available [Paras 14, 22–24].

Education Code – Nature and Effect – Not Having Statutory Force – The Education Code relied upon by appellants was not issued under statute and had no legal binding effect – Held: Administrative codes of private societies cannot confer public law remedies in the absence of statutory backing [Paras 21–23].

Funding – Absence of Government Grants – Autonomy in Financial Management – The audited accounts showed no receipt of public funds or grants – Contributions stemmed from fees and non-public funds like welfare contributions from IAF personnel – Held: Absence of financial dependence on State negates classification as “State” [Paras 13–21].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Majority Opinion – The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision that the Air Force School is not “State” under Article 12 and therefore writ petitions against it are not maintainable – Civil remedies are open to the appellants outside writ jurisdiction [Para 25].

Dissent – Pervasive Control by IAF – Writ Maintainable – Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah dissented, holding that the School, managed by IAF officers and constructed on IAF land with welfare funding, performs a public function – He opined that the IAF exercises pervasive control, and therefore, writs are maintainable against the School under Article 226 – Held: The school is an “authority” under Article 12 and its employment decisions are subject to judicial review [Dissenting Paras 5–30].

Criminal Law - PMLA Offence – Bail – Predicate Offence Bail Granted – Relaxation of Section 45 PMLA – Bail Allowed – The appellant, a headmaster, was accused of conspiring to leak the question paper of a competitive government examination and was arrested along with 36 candidates found with the leaked paper – The Enforcement Directorate registered a separate ECIR under PMLA based on proceeds of crime arising from the predicate offences – The appellant was granted bail in the predicate FIR on 28.01.2025 – The Court noted that the ED investigation was ongoing and the case against the appellant, at present, rested on conspiracy – Held: In light of the nature of allegations and the fact that bail was granted in the predicate offence, rigours of Section 45 PMLA can be relaxed and the appellant released on bail with liberty to the ED to seek modification if further incriminating evidence emerges [Paras 6–10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Bail Granted – Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order denying bail and directed that the appellant be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (PMLA) – Liberty granted to ED to move for recall/modification of order upon discovery of fresh material [Paras 9–11].

Criminal Law - Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 473, 474, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Quashing of FIR – Forged Lease Deed Used – FIR Restored – Allegation that accused used a forged lease deed to sell land and obtained ₹10 lakh as advance – Held: High Court erred in quashing FIR by relying on defence plea that accused were unaware of forgery or were willing to return money – Such issues are matters for trial – FIR restored for continuation of investigation and trial [Paras 2–10].

Plea of Defence – Not a Ground for Quashing – Accused Claimed to Be Victims Themselves – Rejected – Supreme Court reiterated that defence pleas cannot be considered at FIR stage – Even willingness to refund money does not negate commission of cognizable offence – Quashing order set aside [Paras 8–10].

Multiple FIRs – Distinct Transactions – Not Barred – Separate Victims, Separate Offences – Held: Presence of other FIRs relating to similar modus operandi does not make the current FIR a second FIR for the same offence – Each transaction with separate victim constitutes a distinct offence [Para 10].

Final Relief – FIR Quashing Set Aside – Criminal Proceedings to Continue – Supreme Court held that allegations made out a prima facie case – Investigation having culminated in a charge sheet, FIR and proceedings restored for trial – Appeal allowed [Paras 10–11].

Criminal Writ – PIL – Allegation of Fraudulent Cost Escalation – Prima Facie Rejected – Petitioner, a former MLA and PAC Chairman, alleged wrongful revision of estimates in PRRLIS causing Rs. 2,426.07 crores loss to public exchequer – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition – Held: Allegations required factual adjudication not suitable for exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Summary dismissal by High Court justified [Paras 1, 4, 10, 18].

CBI Investigation – Scope of Judicial Discretion – Writ Court’s Non-Interference Upheld – Petitioner sought CBI investigation into the alleged irregularities – Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in refusing to refer the matter to CBI – Mere allegations unsupported by prima facie evidence or substantiated material do not mandate such referral – Discretion exercised by the High Court cannot be faulted in SLP proceedings [Paras 9, 19].

Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Repetitive Petitions by Same Petitioner – Earlier PILs by the same petitioner on related issues (Nos. 28/2016, 179/2016, 338/2017) were already disposed of – Present SLP found to be barred by principle of constructive res judicata – Also noted suppression of material facts by the petitioner – Held: Maintainability of repeated PILs on same subject matter is seriously questionable [Paras 13, 21].

Vigilance Report – CVC Finding Complaint Unsubstantiated – Evidentiary Value – Central Vigilance Commission had closed the complaint regarding PRRLIS packages 5 and 8 as unsubstantiated by order dated 12.09.2017 – Supreme Court noted this finding while rejecting prayer for further inquiry – Held: Findings of competent statutory body carry persuasive value in assessing prima facie case in PILs [Paras 14, 21].

Final Decision – No Interference Warranted – Supreme Court found no illegality in High Court’s decision – Held: No justification to reopen the matter or interfere with impugned judgment – Special Leave Petition dismissed [Paras 20, 22].

Criminal Law - Criminal Complaint – Bar of Limitation – Section 468 CrPC – Cognizance Set Aside – Magistrate took cognizance only under Section 323 IPC (maximum punishment: one year) after three years of the alleged incident – Held: Section 468 CrPC applies; the complaint is barred by limitation – The Magistrate's and High Court’s orders set aside; complaint quashed [Paras 3–11].

Interpretation – Section 468(3) CrPC – Scope Limited to Joint Trial – Not Applicable When Cognizance Taken for Single Offence – Though the complaint alleged multiple offences including one under Section 452 IPC (punishable with up to seven years), cognizance was taken only under Section 323 IPC – Thus, the benefit of extended limitation under Section 468(3) CrPC not available – High Court misread the provision [Paras 6–9].

Legal Principle – Act of Court Cannot Prejudice – Limitation Relates to Date of Offence – Where delay in cognizance is due to court’s process and not complainant’s fault, bar may not apply – However, no justification or extension under Section 473 CrPC invoked in this case – Hence, bar under Section 468 CrPC attracted [Para 8].

Final Relief – Complaint Quashed – Cognizance Beyond Limitation Invalid – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court quashed Complaint Case No.13176 of 2018 – Cognizance taken on 27 September 2019 was beyond limitation for an offence under Section 323 IPC, alleged to have occurred on 5 September 2015 [Paras 10–11].

Civil Law – Partition Suit – Rejection of Plaint – Plaintiffs (mother and son) filed a suit for partition, possession, declaration, injunction, and accounting in respect of properties allegedly purchased from joint family funds – Defendant No.2 (Shaifali Gupta) and Defendant No.5 (subsequent purchaser) filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint alleging bar under Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – Trial Court and High Court rejected the applications – Supreme Court upheld the decision, holding that the issues were mixed questions of fact and law requiring trial [Paras 1–14, 19, 29].

Benami Transactions – Bar under Section 4 of Benami Act – Defendants argued that suit properties stood in names of individuals, hence benami and suit barred – Plaint averred properties were Joint Hindu Family properties purchased from joint family business income – Court held plaint did not disclose properties as benami ex facie – Whether properties were benami is a factual issue requiring evidence – Suit not barred under Section 4 [Paras 23–28].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Application for rejection of plaint must show suit is barred by law based solely on plaint averments – Defendants failed to establish bar under Benami Act based on plaint alone – Application rightly dismissed – Reliance placed on precedent from Pawan Kumar v. Babu Lal, (2019) 4 SCC 367 [Paras 13, 28–29].

Plea of Female Hindu Ownership – Section 14 Hindu Succession Act – Defendant raised argument of absolute ownership by female Hindu under Section 14 for the first time before Supreme Court – Court declined to entertain as not pleaded or argued before courts below – Also held Section 14 does not bar such a suit [Paras 30–31].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC rightly rejected – Suit to proceed on merits – No interference warranted under Article 136 of the Constitution [Paras 32–33].