Service Law – Adverse Remarks in ACR – Quashing of Adverse Remarks – Petitioner, a judicial officer, challenged adverse remarks in ACR for 2010-11 and compulsory retirement – Adverse remarks included issues of integrity and conduct – Petitioner argued no material evidence or complaints to support adverse remarks – High Court found adverse remarks inconsistent with positive remarks on judgment quality and work quantity – No complaints substantiating integrity doubts – Adverse remarks quashed – High Court directed to reconsider representation on ACR. [Paras 1-46]

Judicial Review – Procedural Fairness – Recording of Reasons – High Court emphasized need for detailed reasons when rejecting representations against adverse ACR remarks – Noted absence of complaints or material evidence against petitioner – Ordered fresh decision on petitioner’s representation ensuring reasons are recorded – Reaffirmed importance of procedural fairness in administrative decisions affecting service careers. [Paras 39-45]

Decision – Reconsideration of Representation and Compulsory Retirement – High Court quashed adverse remarks in ACR and ordered fresh consideration of representation – Directed to reconsider order of compulsory retirement post ACR decision – Emphasized adherence to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness – Both writ petitions disposed of with directions for timely reconsideration. [Para 46]

Service Law – Disability – Entitlement to Salary and Allowances – Petition challenging order directing payment of salary and allowances to disabled employee – Respondent employee met with accident and became 100% disabled – Petitioner bank declared him disentitled for salary and allowances on “no work, no pay” principle – High Court held that under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, it is enough that disability was suffered during service, not necessarily during the course of duties – Court emphasized that beneficial legislation cannot be restrictively interpreted – Commissioner under the Act had jurisdiction to try the complaint – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Interpretation of Statute – Persons with Disabilities Act – Sections 47 and 62 – Section 47 prohibits dispensation or reduction in rank of an employee acquiring disability during service – Commissioner empowered under Section 62 to address complaints regarding deprivation of rights of disabled persons – High Court clarifies “during service” to include any disability suffered while employed, irrespective of whether it occurred during the performance of duties. [Paras 3-7]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Court dismisses petition challenging the order of the Commissioner – Upholds entitlement of the respondent to salary and allowances under Section 47 of the Act – Reiterates the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to adjudicate such matters – Affirms the principles of beneficial interpretation and protection of rights of persons with disabilities. [Paras 10-11]

Service Law – Departmental Actions – Multiple Writ Petitions – Petitioner ASI challenges multiple adverse departmental actions including stoppage of increments, adverse ACR entries, non-promotion, and compulsory retirement – Departmental inquiry exonerated petitioner of bribery charges, but punishing authority disagreed and imposed penalties – High Court finds procedural irregularities and mala fides in actions against petitioner – Orders of punishment and compulsory retirement set aside – Petitioner entitled to consequential benefits and arrears. [Paras 1-25]

Service Law – Punishing Authority’s Powers – Disagreement with Inquiry Officer – Held, punishing authority can differ with inquiry report but cannot collect independent evidence to disagree with findings – Such procedure found illegal and indicative of vindictive motives – Actions based on such disagreement without fair opportunity to petitioner quashed. [Para 15]

Service Law – Adverse ACR Entries – Challenge and Review – Petitioner’s ACR downgraded without notice or hearing – Integrity doubted based on uncorroborated complaints – High Court emphasizes independent assessment and unbiased review of ACR – Orders recording adverse remarks without proper procedure quashed. [Paras 17-19]

Decision – Quashing of Departmental Orders – High Court sets aside orders of punishment, adverse ACR entries, and compulsory retirement – Orders respondents to provide consequential benefits and arrears to petitioner – Emphasizes fairness in departmental proceedings and protection of employees from vindictive actions. [Paras 25-26]

Criminal Procedure – Recalling Witness – Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Petition challenging dismissal of application to recall witness – Trial court dismissed application citing delay – High Court held delay not attributable to petitioner due to later issuance of crucial bank communication – Clarification from Branch Manager essential to resolve material discrepancy – Dismissal of application found to be erroneous – High Court exercises inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow recall of witness – Orders of lower courts set aside. [Paras 1-14]

Evidence Law – Essential Witnesses – Application to Recall – High Court emphasizes importance of recalling witness to clarify critical financial error – Branch Manager’s testimony crucial for just decision – Courts must ensure fair trial by permitting rectification of such discrepancies – Exercise of Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be judicious and aimed at discovering truth. [Paras 6-10]

Decision – Quashing of Lower Courts' Orders – High Court quashes orders of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge – Allows application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling Branch Manager – Directs trial court to permit re-examination and cross-examination of witness – Reaffirms commitment to fair trial and just resolution. [Para 13-14]

Criminal Law – Pre-arrest Bail – Summoning as Additional Accused – Petition for anticipatory bail by additional accused summoned under Section 193 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners' names figured in FIR but were exonerated in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. – Trial court found active role and summoned them – High Court held trial court justified in summoning – For anticipatory bail, principles from Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case applied – Petitioners summoned for serious offence under Section 302 IPC – Reasonable apprehension of arrest on appearance – Plea for anticipatory bail within available parameters granted. [Paras 1-8]

Criminal Procedure – Summoning of Additional Accused – Section 193 Cr.P.C. empowers court to summon additional accused based on material accompanying Section 173 Cr.P.C. report – Summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires deposition of prosecution witness – High Court emphasizes no right to anticipatory bail but considers cooperation and non-defiance of law by accused – If additional accused willing to face trial, anticipatory bail can be granted subject to conditions. [Paras 7-8]

Decision – Grant of Anticipatory Bail – Court allows petition for anticipatory bail – Interim bail granted on 29.5.2015 made absolute – Petitioners to comply with conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. – Ensures balance between right to liberty and need for compliance with legal process. [Para 8]

Civil Procedure – Partition Suit – Appeal against dismissal of partition suit – Appellants claimed joint possession of property – Respondents asserted property already partitioned via family settlement – Respondents relied on appellants' written statement in an earlier suit acknowledging partition – High Court held appellants bound by earlier admission of partition – Written statement in previous proceedings considered conclusive unless proved fraudulent or coerced – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-14]

Evidence Law – Admissions – Sections 17 and 18 of Indian Evidence Act – Definition and relevance – Admissions are statements suggesting inference as to any fact in issue – Admissions by parties in previous proceedings binding unless proven to be result of fraud or undue influence – Appellants' admission of partition in previous suit upheld – No evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. [Paras 9-11]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – High Court upholds findings of lower courts – Confirms appellants' admission in prior written statement acknowledging partition – No substantial question of law warranting appeal survival – Both impugned judgments and decrees upheld – Appeal dismissed with costs. [Paras 13-14]

Parole – Temporary Release – Grounds for Parole – Petition challenging rejection of parole for solemnizing marriage of petitioner's daughters – Petitioner already availed four weeks parole for house repair – High Court holds that parole under Section 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 are independent and not conjointly restricted to four weeks per year – Petition allowed, order rejecting parole set aside – Authorities directed to reconsider parole application for marriage of daughters. [Paras 1-11]

Parole – Grounds for Temporary Release – Interpretation of Section 3 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 – Parole for marriage under Section 3(1)(b) and for house repair under Section 3(1)(d) to be counted separately – Periods not to be taken conjointly – Previous parole for house repair does not bar subsequent parole for marriage in the same year. [Para 9]

Decision – Grant of Parole – Court directs reconsideration of parole application for marriage of petitioner's daughters – Reiterates that both grounds for parole under Section 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(d) are separate – Urgency of matter emphasized with direction for immediate reconsideration. [Para 11]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Disclosure Statements – Appeal against conviction under Section 20/29 NDPS Act – Appellant No. 1 apprehended with 5.5 Kg charas at railway station – Disclosure by appellant No. 1 implicating appellant No. 2 as supplier – No recovery from appellant No. 2 – Trial Court convicted both appellants – Appeal of appellant No. 1 abated due to her death – Appeal of appellant No. 2 allowed – Held, prosecution cannot base case on disclosure statement of co-accused without corroboration – Section 30 Evidence Act not aiding prosecution in absence of supporting evidence – Conviction of appellant No. 2 set aside, benefit of doubt given. [Paras 1-20]

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Co-Accused's Disclosure – Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act – Disclosure by co-accused not substantive evidence – Can only lend corroboration if other evidence present – No recovery or other evidence against appellant No. 2 – Section 27 not applicable as no fact discovered from disclosure – Appeal allowed, appellant No. 2 acquitted due to lack of evidence. [Paras 15-17]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellant No. 2 – High Court acquits appellant No. 2 Raj Kumar @ Raju Dube – Orders immediate release if not required in any other case – Emphasizes need for independent corroborative evidence for conviction based on disclosure by co-accused. [Para 20]

Land Acquisition – Re-determination of Compensation – Application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act – Petition challenging rejection of application for re-determination of compensation as time-barred – Original award announced on 30.04.1963 – Reference under Section 18 decided on 25.04.1970 – Application for re-determination filed on 03.11.1987 – Held, limitation period for filing application under Section 28-A is three months from the date of the award of the reference court – Petition dismissed as the application was filed beyond the period of limitation. [Paras 1-14]

Limitation – Computation – Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act – Interpretation – Held, limitation period for application under Section 28-A to be reckoned from the date of the award of the reference court and not from any subsequent appellate order – Applications must be filed within three months from the date of such award. [Paras 5-7]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Court dismisses petition challenging the rejection of re-determination application – Confirms that the application was rightly dismissed as time-barred, being filed beyond the statutory period of three months from the date of the reference court’s award. [Para 14]