Promotion – Effect of Minor Penalty (Censure) – The Writ Court quashed the departmental proceedings and the penalty of "censure" imposed on the respondent, directing his promotion to the post of DGM (ATC) w.e.f. 01.10.1999 – Appellants argued that the "censure" penalty was a valid impediment to promotion – Court held that the respondent was not entitled to promotion in light of the penalty, and that the "censure," being a blameworthy factor, justified denying promotion – Writ Court’s decision to quash the penalty without examining its legality was improper [Paras 1-40].

Departmental Proceedings – Delay and Procedural Fairness – Respondent alleged that the six-month delay in initiating the departmental enquiry deprived him of his right to a speedy conclusion of the proceedings – Appellants argued that the proceedings were completed within a reasonable time frame (1.5 years), and the minor penalty imposed was warranted – Court concluded that the delay was not sufficient to invalidate the enquiry or the penalty imposed [Paras 20-30].

Applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC – Court observed that the respondent had the opportunity to challenge the departmental proceedings in a previous writ petition (SWP No. 893/2005) but chose not to – As per Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, the respondent was estopped from raising the same challenge in a subsequent petition (SWP No. 862/2009) [Paras 31-35].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Writ Court’s judgment set aside – Departmental proceedings and the penalty of "censure" against the respondent upheld – Respondent not entitled to promotion to the post of DGM w.e.f. 01.10.1999.

Criminal Law – Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Enhancement of Maintenance – Whether the monthly maintenance of ₹5000 awarded under Section 125 CrPC should be enhanced – Held, the Court considered the financial status of both parties, inflation rates, and the prevailing standard of living, ruling that the ₹5000 awarded by the Family Court was insufficient – Maintenance was enhanced to ₹7500 per month, subject to adjustment with the maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act – [Para 12-14].

Maintenance – Adjustments under Different Statutes – The respondent contended that the ₹7500 awarded under the Domestic Violence Act should be considered and adjusted – The Court agreed, stating that maintenance orders under different statutes should be harmonized to avoid duplication – Accordingly, the revised amount is subject to adjustment against the ₹7500 already granted under the Domestic Violence Act – [Para 14].

Loan Deduction – Impact on Maintenance – The respondent argued that loan repayments for house construction, reducing his net income, should be factored into the maintenance calculation – The Court rejected this argument, noting that loan deductions undertaken voluntarily after separation cannot be considered mandatory statutory deductions and should not reduce the maintenance obligation – [Para 15].

Decision: Revision allowed – The monthly maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is enhanced from ₹5000 to ₹7500, subject to adjustment with the amount awarded under the Domestic Violence Act. The enhanced maintenance will take effect from the date of the original application.

Criminal Law – Corruption – Sections 120-B, 420 IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Allegations of conspiracy and wrongful loss – Held, the prosecution alleged that the applicants conspired to manipulate tender procedures and awarded contracts for substandard Digital Display Boards for the SAFAR project, causing a loss of ₹2.50 crores to IITM. However, the court found no direct or circumstantial evidence suggesting any financial gain to the applicants. The court also noted that the procurement process was approved by committees and the Director of IITM, with no irregularities in the decision-making process. [Paras 20-80].

Administrative Law – Departmental Exoneration – Effect on criminal prosecution – The court noted that Applicant No. 2 (Vipin Mali) had been exonerated in a departmental enquiry on identical charges, and this exoneration on merits raised doubts about the likelihood of securing a conviction in criminal prosecution. The court referred to the standard of proof required in criminal cases, which is higher than that in departmental proceedings. [Paras 90-105].

Judicial Precedent – Radheshyam Kejriwal case – Impact of exoneration in disciplinary proceedings – The court cited Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal, holding that where exoneration in departmental proceedings occurs on merits, it can significantly affect the continuation of a criminal prosecution based on the same facts. The court ruled that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the legal process. [Paras 110-125].

Decision:

Applications Allowed – Discharge Granted – The court discharged both applicants, setting aside the trial court’s orders rejecting their applications for discharge. The prosecution had insufficient evidence to proceed against the applicants, particularly in light of Applicant No. 2's departmental exoneration. [Paras 130-135].

Service Law – Rule 29(1)(vi) of CCS CCA Rules – Revisional Authority's powers to enhance punishment – Whether the Revisional Authority was justified in exercising its powers under Rule 29(1)(vi) to enhance the punishment of the respondent after five years – Held, the enhancement of the punishment by the Revisional Authority was not justified due to the lapse of a reasonable period since the original order. The Court applied the judgment in Union of India v. Vikrambhai Maganbhai Chaudhari, which held that revision powers must be exercised within a reasonable time even when no specific time limit is prescribed under the rules. [Paras 20-55].

Service Law – Principles of Natural Justice – Allegation of forged vouchers – The Court addressed the issue of whether allegations of forged vouchers, not part of the original charge sheet, could be considered during the inquiry – Held, that the allegation of forged vouchers, which came to light during the inquiry, should have been part of the original charge sheet. Failure to include these charges violated principles of natural justice. [Paras 56-70].

Judicial Precedent – Reliance on Supreme Court decisions – The Court relied on the precedent set in Union of India v. Vikrambhai Maganbhai Chaudhari, where it was held that the exercise of revisional powers must be within a reasonable period, even in the absence of a specific timeline in the rules. [Paras 40-60].

Decision:

Writ Petition Dismissed – The Court upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), quashing the order of compulsory retirement and reinstating the respondent. The Court ruled that the Revisional Authority’s decision to enhance the punishment after nearly five years was unreasonable and invalid. [Paras 75-85].

Criminal Law – Abduction and Murder – Section 364A and 302 IPC – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Held, the prosecution established that the appellants abducted the victim for ransom, and when they failed to extort money, they murdered him. Despite no direct evidence of the murder, the chain of circumstantial evidence and the appellants' failure to provide an alternative explanation justified conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s reliance on the confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, leading to the discovery of the dead body. [Paras 28-68].

Criminal Law – Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Admissibility of disclosure leading to the recovery of a dead body – The Court affirmed that the recovery of the dead body following the accused’s disclosure was admissible, even though the body was found in an open area. The proximity between the abduction and recovery of the body supported the reliability of the disclosure. [Paras 50-62].

Motive – Establishing motive in cases of circumstantial evidence – Although the prosecution could not fully establish a motive, the appellants’ actions during and after the abduction pointed to a criminal intention, which negated the need for a distinct motive to commit murder. The demand for ransom and the subsequent killing to evade capture sufficed as inferred motives. [Paras 69-75].

FIR and procedural fairness – Alleged delay in FIR registration – Held, the FIR was registered promptly after the incident, and any minor procedural delays in the investigation, including sending the FIR to the Magistrate, did not affect the prosecution's case. The court rejected the appellants' claim of FIR manipulation. [Paras 76-88].

Judicial Precedent – Reliance on circumstantial evidence and recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – The Court referred to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar, supporting the conviction based on circumstantial evidence when the accused failed to explain the victim’s fate after the abduction. [Paras 89-102].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – The Court upheld the trial court’s conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the conviction for abduction and murder. [Paras 103-110].

Constitutional Law – Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) – Challenge to deduction of 1% Labour Cess by the government from contractors’ bills – Absence of specific contract provisions for such deductions – Petitioners, engaged in various infrastructure projects, claim deductions are illegal and arbitrary – Relying on prior judgment (Ch.V.V. Subba Rao), court finds in favor of petitioners – Held, government cannot deduct cess without inclusion in contract estimates [Paras 5-12].

Labour Cess Act 1996 – Applicability to infrastructure contracts – Petitioners argue Labour Cess was not included in original contract estimates for works initiated before the amendment of rules in 2007 – Court reiterates principle that deductions for Labour Cess can only be made if explicitly provided for in contract – Judgment in prior case deemed applicable – Relief granted [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held, 1% Labour Cess cannot be deducted from contractors’ bills unless explicitly factored into contract estimates – Government directed to cease further deductions and refund amounts already deducted – No order as to costs [Para 13].

University Regulations – Post-Publication Review – Retrospective Application – Petitioner challenged the suo motu review conducted by the University, which led to the reduction of her CGPA and resulted in her demotion from First Class First to First Class Second – University cited a resolution passed on December 24, 2018, requiring a review of the top three examinees if a post-publication review affected the First Class First position – Court held that the retrospective application of the resolution, which was not in effect at the time of the petitioner's result publication, was impermissible [Paras 1-50].

Resolution and Fairness – Suo Motu Review – Court observed that the University’s action of conducting a suo motu review without the petitioner’s consent or prior notice violated principles of natural justice – University’s retrospective application of the December 24, 2018 resolution was deemed improper as the petitioner’s results were published prior to the resolution’s enactment [Paras 25-35].

Relief Granted – Award of Gold Medal – While the court acknowledged the higher CGPA of Respondent No. 7 following the review, it ordered that Respondent No. 7 be declared First Class First and awarded the Gold Medal – As a special case, the court also directed that the petitioner be awarded a Gold Medal, but her merit position would remain as First Class Second [Paras 45-50].

Decision:

Writ Petition disposed of – University directed to award Gold Medals to both Respondent No. 7 and the petitioner, with the petitioner retaining the second position in the merit list.

Tenancy Law – Right to Cross-Examination – Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 – The tenants sought to reopen and recall the evidence of P.W.1 for cross-examination, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller – Held: A tenant does not have the right to cross-examine in proceedings under Section 21(2)(a) unless the tenant disputes the landlord-tenant relationship – The petitions were dismissed by the court, confirming the Rent Controller's view – The tenants were not entitled to cross-examine as there was no dispute on the landlord-tenant relationship in this case [Paras 2-3].

Reopening of Evidence – Civil Revision Petitions – The tenants filed petitions to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 and recall P.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination – The Rent Controller dismissed the petitions, leading to the present Civil Revision Petitions – Held: The court confirmed the Rent Controller's view that the tenants do not have the right to cross-examination in this scenario – However, the court set aside ex parte orders passed on 23.08.2024, allowing tenants an opportunity to present their defense by producing evidence before 18.09.2024 – Failure to appear would result in forfeiture of their right to an inquiry before the Rent Controller [Paras 4-7].

Precedent – Reference to Previous Decision – The court relied on its earlier decision in J. Thennarasu Vs. Anita Nalliah, holding that a tenant does not have a right to cross-examination under Section 21(2)(a) unless there is a dispute regarding the landlord-tenant relationship – This principle was applied in the present case to dismiss the tenants' petitions [Para 3].

Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions filed by the tenants were dismissed, confirming the Rent Controller's view that the tenants do not have the right to cross-examination in proceedings under Section 21(2)(a) where the landlord-tenant relationship is undisputed. The ex parte orders passed by the Rent Controller were set aside, granting the tenants an opportunity to present their defense by producing evidence on or before 18.09.2024. The proceedings were directed to be completed by 04.10.2024, with arguments scheduled for 20.09.2024(Paras 4-7).

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification – The appellant, State of Gujarat, challenged the acquittal of the respondent, a Clerk in the SRP Group, who was accused of demanding and accepting ₹200 for fixing the pay and leave salary of the complainant – The trial court acquitted the respondent on the grounds of insufficient evidence – Held: The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent made a demand for illegal gratification and that the accused had the authority to fix the complainant’s pay – There were material contradictions in the testimony of witnesses and no clear evidence of demand and acceptance [Paras 3, 9, 10].

Judicial Standards – Acquittal in Corruption Cases – The trial court’s acquittal was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification – The appellate court reaffirmed that mere possession of currency notes is insufficient to convict under the Prevention of Corruption Act without concrete proof of demand and acceptance – Held: The view taken by the trial court was plausible and did not suffer from illegality or perversity, warranting no interference [Paras 10-11].

Presumption of Innocence – High Standard for Reversal of Acquittal – The appellate court reiterated that in acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence is strengthened – The acquittal can only be reversed if the trial court's decision is found to be manifestly erroneous or based on misinterpretation of law or facts – Held: The trial court's reasoning was based on sound legal principles, and no compelling evidence was found to overturn the acquittal [Paras 8, 11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The acquittal of the respondent by the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Surat, in Special ACB Case No. 4/1993 is upheld – Bail bond canceled – Judgment dated 26.02.2010 is confirmed [Paras 12-14].