Service Law – Police Personnel – Dismissal from Service – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Petitioner dismissed under Rule 16.2 PPR on account of involvement in NDPS case – Subsequently acquitted by Trial Court – Held: Acquittal not ipso facto ground for reinstatement – Court required to examine nature of acquittal and findings recorded by Criminal Court [Paras 2, 6, 11(v)].

NDPS Case – Acquittal – Nature of Acquittal – Trial Court found gaps in chain of custody, discrepancies regarding sample carrier and contradictions in documentary evidence – Acquittal granted by extending benefit of doubt – Held: Not an honourable acquittal on merits negating recovery – Acquittal based on technical and procedural infirmities [Paras 6-7].

Departmental Proceedings vis-à-vis Criminal Trial – Distinction – Standard of Proof – Criminal trial requires proof beyond reasonable doubt – Departmental inquiry proceeds on preponderance of probabilities/satisfaction of Inquiry Officer under Rule 16.25 PPR – Both operate in distinct spheres and serve different purposes – Acquittal in criminal case does not automatically vitiate departmental punishment [Paras 8-12].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – High Court not to act as Appellate Authority over findings of Disciplinary Authority – Interference warranted only if violation of natural justice, perversity, lack of evidence or disproportionate punishment established – Acquittal alone insufficient to set aside punishment [Paras 10-11].

Police Discipline – Dope Test – Petitioner found positive for morphine/buprenorphine during departmental proceedings – Conduct inconsistent with discipline expected of police official – Department justified in sustaining dismissal despite acquittal in criminal case [Paras 7, 13].

Guiding Principles Summarised – (i) Different standards of proof in criminal and departmental proceedings – (ii) Conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, departmental punishment based on preponderance of probabilities – (iii) High Court’s limited jurisdiction under Article 226 – (iv) Only where charges, evidence and findings are identical and acquittal is honourable, departmental action may fail – (v) Court must examine substance of criminal court findings and not merely terminology of acquittal [Para 11].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Order dated 23.06.2025 rejecting appeal against dismissal upheld – No ground for interference under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Bar to Cognizance – Offence under Section 182 IPC – Complaint must be in writing by the public servant concerned or by a public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate – Where original complaint was made to Superintendent of Police and SHO conducted inquiry – SHO not competent to initiate proceedings under Section 182 IPC – Cognizance based on such complaint without jurisdiction [Paras 5-7].

Criminal Law – Section 182 IPC – False Information to Public Servant – Kalandra issued by SHO after inquiry into complaint addressed to Superintendent of Police – Statute does not contemplate delegation of power by superior public servant unless expressly provided – Filing of complaint by inferior officer impermissible – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 5, 7-8].

Delegation of Statutory Power – Express Provision Required – Section 195 Cr.P.C. creates complete bar unless complaint filed by competent authority – Power to delegate must be express and cannot be assumed – Complaint by SHO without authority renders entire trial without jurisdiction [Paras 7-8].

Precedent – Reliance on P.D. Lakhani v. State of Punjab, (2008) 5 SCC 150 – Supreme Court held complaint under Section 182 IPC must be by public servant concerned or superior – Inferior officer cannot lodge complaint – Applied to facts of present case [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Petition allowed – Kalandra dated 31.10.2021 under Section 182 IPC and all consequential proceedings including CHI No.1213 of 2021 pending before JMIC, Kurukshetra quashed.

Service Law - Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 – Higher Pension Option – Claim for Refixation on Actual Salary – Petitioner retired APSRTC employee sought direction for consideration of representation dated 02.12.2017 for enhancement of pension on actual salary exceeding ceiling limit of Rs.5,000/-/Rs.6,500/- – Alleged illegal restriction of employer’s contribution to ceiling amount despite contribution on actual salary – Relied on R.C. Gupta and subsequent Supreme Court judgment in Sunil Kumar B. – Held: In view of authoritative pronouncement of Apex Court in Sunil Kumar B. laying down guidelines in Para 44 regarding exercise of option and entitlement under pre and post amendment provisions of Para 11(3) and 11(4) – Writ petition disposed of directing adherence to said directions – No independent adjudication required [Paras 13–17].

Provident Fund Contribution – Exercise of Option under Para 26(6) and Para 11(3) – Whether exercise of option under Provident Fund Scheme bars option under Pension Scheme – Referred to R.C. Gupta – Held: Exercise of option under Para 26(6) is precursor and does not estop employee from seeking benefit under Para 11(3) when contribution was made on actual salary – Beneficial scheme not to be defeated by technical cut-off dates [Para 13].

2014 Amendment to Pension Scheme – Validity and Applicability – Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar B. upheld validity of Notification dated 22.08.2014 with specific directions regarding categories of employees including those retired prior to 01.09.2014 and those who exercised option – High Court followed binding directions under Article 142 and Para 44 of said judgment – Matter disposed in terms of Apex Court guidelines [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of in terms of directions contained in Para 44 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Criminal Law – Acid Attack – Double Death – Conviction under Sections 304, 326-A and 452 IPC – Appellant poured sulphuric acid on mother and daughter-in-law at 2:00 AM causing extensive ante-mortem deep burn injuries – Both victims died due to septicaemic shock resulting from acid burns – Ocular testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 found natural and trustworthy – Medical and FSL evidence corroborated presence of sulphuric acid – Delay in lodging FIR explained due to immediate medical treatment – Conviction upheld – Sentence of life imprisonment modified to fixed term of 14 years RI in exercise of appellate powers [Paras 16–18, 25, 34, 39].

Evidence – Ocular Testimony of Related Witnesses – Reliability – Informant (son of deceased) witnessed accused pouring liquid substance on victims and identified him in torchlight – Minor discrepancies regarding source of light and address held immaterial – Evidence of related witness cannot be discarded solely on ground of relationship – Quality of evidence prevails over quantity – No material contradiction elicited in cross-examination – Held: Testimony credible and sufficient for conviction [Paras 28, 30, 32, 33].

FIR – Delay in Lodging – Effect – Incident occurred in intervening night of 07/08.05.2014 – FIR lodged on 09.05.2014 after shifting victims to multiple hospitals due to critical condition – Held: Delay sufficiently explained – Priority to medical treatment in acid attack cases is natural human conduct – Mere delay not fatal absent evidence of concoction [Paras 21–25].

Medical Jurisprudence – Septicaemia – Causation – Post-mortem reports indicated septicaemic shock due to ante-mortem deep burn injuries – Defence contention that death due to lack of proper treatment rejected – Septicaemia held direct consequence of acid burns – Acid attack immediate and proximate cause of death – Conviction under Section 304 IPC sustainable [Paras 16–17].

Defective Investigation – Impact – Alleged lapses such as non-preparation of torch report and non-recording of dying declaration – Held: Defective investigation does not enure to benefit of accused when ocular and medical evidence otherwise reliable – Accused cannot claim acquittal solely on ground of investigative lapses [Para 31].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment – Power of High Court to Impose Fixed Term – Considering gravity of offence balanced with period of custody (about 13 years 9 months), absence of criminal history and family circumstances – In light of principles in V. Sriharan and Shiva Kumar – Life sentence modified to fixed term of 14 years RI – Fine and other sentences maintained [Paras 36–39].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 304, 326-A and 452 IPC upheld – Sentence of life imprisonment reduced to fixed term of 14 years rigorous imprisonment – Fine and other sentences affirmed – Appellant to be released after completion of 14 years RI subject to Sections 427 and 428 Cr.P.C., if not required in any other case.

Civil Suit – Challenge to OEA Order – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Bar under Section 39 OCH & PFL Act – Plaintiff sought declaration that order dated 05.04.1984 passed by Tahasildar in OEA Case No.1 of 1976 under Section 5(i) of OEA Act is void – Trial Court decreed suit holding no notice issued – First Appellate Court reversed – Held: Though Section 39 bars civil court’s jurisdiction in matters triable by consolidation authorities, civil court retains jurisdiction where statutory procedure or principles of natural justice are violated – Bar not absolute [Paras 15].

Consolidation Proceedings – Effect on Revenue Proceedings – Section 4(4) and Section 51 OCH & PFL Act – Whether consolidation notification abates proceedings before revenue authorities – Held: Act does not contemplate abatement of proceedings pending before revenue authorities – Jurisdiction of OEA Collector/Tahasildar not taken away by consolidation notification – First Appellate Court rightly upheld validity of OEA proceeding [Paras 13–14].

Lease by Ex-Intermediary – Minor Lessee – Validity of Unregistered Lease Deed – Plaintiff relied on unregistered lease deed dated 13.06.1943 – First Appellate Court found plaintiff aged about 13 years at relevant time – Document contained mutilations especially regarding age – Lease found to be created and antedated after 1946 – Plaintiff failed to adduce cogent evidence – Held: Lease deed not genuine – Plaintiff’s claim of title based on fabricated document liable to fail [Paras 16–17].

Consolidation ROR – Evidentiary Value – Whether Publication Confers Title – Consolidation ROR published in favour of plaintiff prior to OEA order – Plaintiff contended non-challenge by State renders it final and binding – Held: When foundational document of title (lease) is invalid and plaintiff failed to prove possession, mere publication of ROR does not confer title – Consolidation entry cannot override valid OEA order [Paras 18].

Necessary Parties – OEA Proceeding – Successors of Ex-Intermediary – In view of finding that lease deed itself was fabricated and plaintiff failed to establish valid right, question whether successors of ex-intermediary were necessary parties rendered academic – No interference warranted [Paras 16–17].

Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent Findings of Fact by First Appellate Court – High Court found no perversity in findings regarding fabricated lease, absence of possession, and validity of OEA proceeding – Held: No substantial question of law survives for interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak in T.A. No.75/227 of 1986/87 affirmed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law – Amendment of Plaint – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Scope and Principles – Court reiterated that amendments necessary for determining real controversy should ordinarily be allowed – Hyper-technical approach to be avoided – Merits of amendment to be tested at trial – Delay alone not a ground to reject amendment – Limitation plea can be framed as issue after allowing amendment [Paras 7-10, 18-19].

Amendment Application Signed by Power of Attorney Holder – Validity – Objection that power of attorney not formally taken on record rejected – Power of attorney holder is recognised agent under Order III CPC – Plaintiff never disputed authority – Act of attorney is act of principal – Held: Application not invalid merely because POA application under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC pending [Paras 11-15].

Limitation – Entry 58 Limitation Act – Amendment Allegedly Time-Barred – Plea of limitation is mixed question of law and fact – Where dispute exists as to applicability of limitation provision, amendment cannot be rejected at threshold – Issue of limitation can be framed and decided at trial – Amendment not to be refused solely on arguable limitation ground [Paras 16-19].

Order II Rule 2 CPC – Bar of Subsequent Suit – Applicability to Amendment – Order II Rule 2 operates as bar to subsequent suit and not to amendment of pleadings in pending suit – Objection that amendment seeks to incorporate reliefs from separate suit rejected – Held: Bar under Order II Rule 2 does not eclipse power under Order VI Rule 17 CPC [Para 20].

Withdrawal of Admissions – Allegation that amendment retracts earlier pleadings – Court held consequential amendment open to defendants – No manifest injustice demonstrated – Not ground to invoke supervisory jurisdiction [Para 21].

Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Supervisory jurisdiction limited – No patent perversity or gross failure of justice found in trial Court’s order allowing amendment – High Court will not interfere merely because another view is possible [Para 23].

Decision: Miscellaneous Petitions dismissed – Order allowing amendment of plaint upheld – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Arbitration – Termination of Mandate vs Termination of Proceedings – Withdrawal of Sole Arbitrator due to ill-health – Mandate terminated under Section 14 – No final award or order under Section 32 – Held, mere termination of mandate does not result in termination of arbitral proceedings – Reference continues and vacancy in tribunal must be filled under Section 15(2) – Arbitration agreement subsists [Paras 21–24, 26].

Substitution of Arbitrator – Section 15(2) – Same Rules Applicable – Court held that expression “shall be appointed according to the rules applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced” means rigours of Section 11, including limitation, apply equally to appointment of substitute arbitrator – Application under Section 11 maintainable upon failure of agreed procedure through BCCI [Paras 25, 31, 34].

Limitation – Section 11(6) Petition – Applicability of Article 137 – Supreme Court in M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. held Article 137 (three years) applies to Section 11(6) petitions – Right to apply accrues upon failure of other party/institution after invocation – Limitation applies equally to substitute arbitrator appointment – Technical plea that no limitation applies rejected [Paras 28–33].

Exclusion and Condonation – COVID Extension – Section 14 and Section 5 Limitation Act – Period excluded pursuant to Supreme Court’s suo motu orders in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation – Further exclusion granted for bona fide prosecution of petitions under Sections 29A, 14 and 15 – Residual delay of 76 and 91 days – Held, delay condonable under Section 5 – Formal application not mandatory – Substantial justice requires continuation of arbitral reference [Paras 35–38].

Institutional Arbitration – Failure of Agreed Procedure – Applicants approached BCCI twice for substitution – No appointment made – Court observed that arbitration agreement does not come to an end due to expiry or withdrawal of arbitrator – In peculiar facts, technical objections cannot defeat adjudication of disputes on merits [Paras 25–27, 34].

Order:

(i) Delay in filing the Applications condoned –

(ii) Mr. Justice R. Y. Ganoo (Former Judge, Bombay High Court) appointed as substitute Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from Dealership Agreements dated 26 December 2012 and 9 July 2013 –

(iii) Directions issued regarding disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1), appearance before Arbitrator, fees as per Bombay High Court (Fee Payable to Arbitrators) Rules, 2018 –

(iv) All rights and contentions kept open – Applications allowed and disposed of [Para 40].

Succession – Intestate Male Hindu – Cognate vs Agnate – Girdhari died issueless and intestate – Plaintiff admitted son of Mohra and uterine brother of Girdhari – Defendants failed to prove they were agnates – Held: In absence of Class I, Class II heirs and agnates, cognate entitled to inherit under Section 8(d) read with Section 3(1)(c) Hindu Succession Act – First Appellate Court erred in ignoring alternative plea based on admitted facts [Paras 20-23].

Pleadings – Grant of Relief on Admitted/Proved Facts – Plaintiff pleaded he was son of Mohra and Chunia – Maternity admitted – Even if paternity disputed, uterine relationship proved – Held: Court bound to grant relief flowing from admitted facts – Appellate Court wrongly rejected alternate claim as “not pleaded” – Finding illegal and perverse [Paras 21-23].

Legitimacy – Presumption – Mohra admittedly married to Chunia – Plaintiff born from Mohra – Defendants alleged kareva marriage with Kirpa but failed to prove same – No evidence of custom or valid remarriage – Held: Presumption of legitimacy operates in favour of plaintiff – Onus to rebut not discharged [Paras 24(ii)-(iii), 25].

Evidence – Failure to Prove Kareva Marriage – Defendants set up plea of kareva between Mohra and Kirpa – No cogent evidence led – Mutation of Kirpa’s estate (Ex.P11) showed inheritance only by widow Narayani and children – Plaintiff and Mohra excluded – Conduct inconsistent with defence case – Appellate Court’s rejection of mutation on conjectures unsustainable [Paras 24(iv)].

Appreciation of Evidence – Misreading by First Appellate Court – Trial Court relied on aged independent witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6) who had special knowledge of family – Evidence wrongly discarded on surmises – Documentary evidence including ration card (Ex.PW5/A) duly proved – No suggestion of fabrication – Held: Appellate Court’s findings perverse [Paras 17, 24(v)-(xiii)].

Voter Lists – Evidentiary Value – Entries in voter lists showing plaintiff as son of Kirpa relied upon by defendants – Held: Voter list not conclusive proof of parentage – At best corroborative – Cannot override consistent oral and documentary evidence and statutory presumptions [Paras 24(xiii)-(xiv), 25].

Lis Pendens – Subsequent Sale – Defendants No.2 to 5 sold suit property during pendency of suit to defendants No.9 and 10 – Held: Purchasers bound by doctrine of lis pendens – Sale deed does not defeat plaintiff’s title [Paras 12, 16].

Regular Second Appeal – Scope under Section 41 Punjab Courts Act – Appeal maintainable on ground that decision contrary to law – First Appellate Court’s judgment contrary to settled principles of succession and evidence – Interference justified [Paras 28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of First Appellate Court dated 21.08.1991 set aside – Trial Court decree dated 14.06.1988 restored – Plaintiff declared absolute owner in possession – Impugned mutation, mortgage and sale deed set aside – Pending applications disposed of.

Service Law – Pay Parity – Implementation of Departmental Order – Delay and Laches – Petitioner sought implementation of office order dated 03.03.2006 granting pay parity with junior w.e.f. 30.01.1989 and consequential pensionary benefits – Petition filed in 2026 after more than 36 years from cause of action and nearly 19 years from departmental order – Mere representations and legal notice do not revive stale claim – Held: Gross and unexplained delay disentitles petitioner from discretionary relief under Article 226 – Petition dismissed [Paras 7, 15-16].

Writ Jurisdiction – Articles 226/227 – Discretionary Relief – Delay as Bar – Court reiterated that High Court may refuse relief where there is negligence or omission to assert rights causing prejudice – Equity aids the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights – Repeated representations do not extend limitation nor create fresh cause of action – Stale claims cannot be resurrected at belated stage [Paras 8-13, 15].

Recurring Cause of Action – Pension and Pay Fixation – Applicability – Petitioner contended that reduced pension constitutes recurring cause of action – Court distinguished Union of India v. Tarsem Singh and held that benefit of continuing wrong not available where petitioner remained silent for decades and approached Court after retirement without justifiable explanation – Held: Doctrine of recurring cause not applicable in facts of present case [Paras 5, 14-15].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed on ground of delay and laches – No relief granted – Parties left to bear their own costs.