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.

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.

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].

Registration of Sale Deed – Duty of Sub-Registrar under Section 71 of Registration Act, 1908 – Sub-Registrar, Renigunta, refused to accept the sale deed dated 05.08.2024, presented by the petitioner, without providing any reasons – Petitioner challenged the refusal, relying on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Salimeni Ravindra v. State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.10392 of 2021) – Court emphasized the duty of the Sub-Registrar to either register the document or issue a speaking order recording reasons for refusal in Book No.2, with an endorsement "registration refused" – Held: Sub-Registrar is directed to process the sale deed or issue a speaking order as per law [Paras 1-7].

Obligation of Sub-Registrar under Registration Act – Reliance on Prior Case Law – Court refers to the judgment in Salimeni Ravindra v. State of Andhra Pradesh, holding that the Sub-Registrar is under a statutory duty to process documents presented for registration unless there are valid legal grounds for refusal, which must be recorded in writing – Sub-Registrar is bound to comply with the procedure established under Rules 161-164 of the Registration Act [Paras 3-5].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Sub-Registrar directed to process the sale deed dated 05.08.2024, or issue a speaking order within four weeks, stating reasons for refusal if applicable – Court also directs the petitioner to submit a copy of this order and the judgment in Salimeni Ravindra to the Registrar for future reference [Para 8].

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].

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Acquittal - Search and Seizure – Non-Compliance with Section 42 - The investigating officer failed to obtain a search warrant or authorization from the jurisdictional Magistrate, a requirement under Section 42 of the NDPS Act - The search was conducted without the proper authorization, vitiating the procedure - Held: Non-compliance with mandatory provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act led to the vitiation of the search and seizure process - Acquittal granted [Paras 20, 21].

Evidence – Chain of Custody – Break in Chain - The prosecution did not produce the examined contraband in court for identification by witnesses, leading to a break in the chain of custody - The link between the seized contraband and the samples tested by the FSL was not maintained, raising questions about the integrity of the evidence - Held: Failure to maintain the chain of custody casts doubt on the integrity of the prosecution’s case - Benefit of the doubt given to the accused [Paras 21, 22].

Criminal Procedure – Expert Reports – Section 293 Cr.P.C. – Fair Trial - Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. allows the court to summon and examine an expert as to the subject matter of their report - However, the trial judge did not summon the FSL expert for cross-examination, thus denying the defense this opportunity - Held: The omission violated the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution - The FSL report, while presumptive evidence, is not conclusive without expert examination [Paras 22, 23].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Fair Trial - The trial court's failure to allow cross-examination of the FSL expert compromised the appellant's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution - Held: The right to a fair trial was infringed, rendering the conviction unsustainable - Conviction set aside [Paras 22, 23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of the charges – Fine amount, if deposited, to be refunded – Personal and surety bonds canceled – Case property to be dealt with in accordance with the law after the expiry of the limitation period for filing an appeal [Final Order].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Cross-examination – Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 – Petitioners (tenants) sought to recall P.W.1 (landlords) for cross-examination after proceedings were initiated under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act, due to lack of an agreement as required under Section 4 – Held, cross-examination is not a right for tenants where the landlord-tenant relationship is undisputed – Petition dismissed in line with prior precedents [Paras 1-20].

Departmental Delay and Procedural Fairness – Petition for Reopening Evidence – Order on Eviction Proceedings – Tenants claimed denial of their opportunity to present a defense due to being set ex parte – Held, tenants have the right to present evidence before 18.09.2024, failing which they forfeit the right – Rent Controller instructed to complete the proceedings by 04.10.2024 [Paras 21-40].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Tenants not entitled to cross-examine or reopen P.W.1 in the eviction proceedings initiated under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act. However, the ex parte orders were set aside, allowing tenants to submit evidence before 18.09.2024.

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.

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].