Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Pre-2015 Claims – Petitioner sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds in 2013, 14 years before superannuation, and applied for compassionate appointment of his physically disabled son – Claim rejected in 2017 on grounds that 2015 scheme was inapplicable to cases before 05.08.2014 and that no medical incapacitation certificate was submitted – Held: Petitioner’s application dated 09.04.2014 fell within Clause 24 of 2015 Scheme and had to be considered under Circulars of 2005 and 2007 – Circular dated 24.09.2007 provided for ex gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment for employees retiring before age 55 due to incapacitation – Bank erred in insisting on certification by medical board where scheme did not so require [Paras 4, 24–34, 36–37]

Ex Gratia Compensation – Eligibility under 2007 Circular – Employee voluntarily retired before 55 due to incapacitation and made timely application – Circular B(iii) of 24.09.2007 provides entitlement to ex gratia payment without need for medical board certification – Bank’s denial based on technicalities rejected – Petitioner's medical retirement accepted without objections, indicating implied recognition of incapacitation – Rejection of benefit arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 25–33]

Policy Interpretation – Clause 24 of 2015 Scheme – Applications pending as on 04.08.2014 or made before that date must be dealt with under earlier circulars – Bank’s failure to apply Clause 24 and denial of relief under 2007 Circular was unjustified – Bank directed to process ex gratia compensation within 12 weeks [Paras 26, 36–38]

Compassionate Appointment – Financial Hardship – Bank’s argument that petitioner was receiving pension and retiral benefits not relevant – Held: Financial need not sole determinant – Purpose of compassionate appointment includes broader social obligation – Case law in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar and Malaya Nanda Sethy applied [Paras 12–13, 35]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned communication dated 16.01.2017 set aside – Respondent Bank directed to consider petitioner’s application for appointment of son on compassionate grounds and grant ex gratia compensation under Clause B(iii) of Circular dated 24.09.2007 – Payment to be processed within 12 weeks [Para 38]

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act – Rebuttal by Accused – Standard of Proof – Accused admitted signature on cheque but set up defence that cheque was part of multiple cheques issued for chit transaction to a third party – Defence supported by reply notices and contemporaneous documents – Held: Accused need only raise a probable defence and not prove it beyond reasonable doubt – Presumption successfully rebutted on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 12, 15–19].

Cheque Dishonour – Financial Capacity of Complainant – Onus on Complainant – Complainant claimed cash loan of ₹5,00,000/- without documentary proof – Failure to disclose source of funds in statutory notice – Contradictory deposition regarding who sought the loan – Held: Once financial capacity is disputed, burden shifts back to complainant – Failure to prove capacity weakens prosecution case [Paras 7, 12, 19].

Evidence – Non-Examination of Material Witness – Adverse Inference – Transaction allegedly routed through intermediary (R. Venkateshappa) – Complainant admitted no difficulty in examining said person – Same counsel represented complainant and intermediary in connected proceedings – Held: Non-examination of crucial intermediary, despite defence specifically alleging misuse of cheque, is a material omission attracting adverse inference and probabilising defence [Paras 18–19].

Appreciation of Evidence – Perverse Findings – Courts below proceeded solely on admission of signature on cheque – Ignored contradictions in complainant’s testimony, reply notices and defence evidence – Held: Failure to consider entire material on record renders findings perverse and unsustainable in law [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Judgments of conviction and sentence dated 06.04.2016 and 17.04.2021 set aside – Petitioner/accused acquitted of offence under Section 138 NI Act – Bail and surety bonds discharged.

Criminal Law – Bail – Parity – Accused not named in FIR but arrested along with co-accused from whose possession 40 motorcycles were allegedly recovered – No videography of recovery conducted as required under Section 105 BNSS – Co-accused Shoeb and Owais granted bail on similar grounds – Held: Applicant entitled to bail on grounds of parity and lack of procedural compliance [Paras 3, 5-6]

Evidence – Search and Seizure – Non-Compliance with BNSS – Recovery of motorcycles not recorded via audio-video means as mandated under Section 105 BNSS and Rule 18 of UP BNSS Rules, 2024 – No independent witnesses or uploading on E-Sakshya portal – Held: Creates serious doubt on prosecution version – Non-compliance may benefit accused at bail and trial stages [Paras 12-13, 16, 18]

Police Conduct – Procedural Safeguards – Lack of SOP – Despite clear statutory mandate, no SOP issued by DGP under Rule 18(5) of UP Rules – Court directs DGP to issue detailed SOP for mandatory video recording during seizure – Non-compliance may lead to disciplinary action against erring officers [Paras 17, 19]

Judicial Directions – Systemic Compliance – Registrar (Compliance) directed to forward copy of judgment to DGP, U.P., for issuance of SOP and ensuring compliance with Section 105 BNSS and Rule 18 UP Rules – Objective is to prevent false implication and ensure fair investigation [Paras 19-20]

Decision: Bail granted – Applicant to be released on furnishing personal bond and two sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure cooperation in trial and prevent misuse of bail – Court emphasizes mandatory procedural compliance in future seizures.

Criminal Law – Discharge – Scope at Preliminary Stage – Accused seeking discharge contending that he was neither Director nor shareholder of accused company – Magistrate relied on Registrar of Companies records showing petitioner as Director – At discharge stage, court required to see prima facie material and not conduct a roving enquiry – Held: Existence of documentary material showing petitioner as Director sufficient to proceed with trial [Paras 5–6].

Company Offences – Director’s Liability – Economic Offences – Collection of deposits without licence – CBCID final report alleging offences under IPC, RBI Act and Kerala Chitties Act – Directors responsible for management as per Articles of Association – Held: When records show accused as Director during relevant period, criminal liability cannot be ruled out at threshold [Paras 2, 5].

Effect of Writ Proceedings – Direction to Registrar of Companies – Enquiry into Directorship – Mere direction by High Court to conduct enquiry and rectify records, if mistake found – No material produced to show that enquiry concluded in favour of accused – Held: Pendency or existence of such direction does not automatically entitle accused to discharge [Para 6].

Criminal Revision – Interference with Order Refusing Discharge – Revisional court will not interfere unless order suffers from illegality or perversity – Magistrate’s order based on records and relevant considerations – Held: No ground made out for interference under revisional jurisdiction [Paras 5–6].

Liberty Reserved – Quashing Proceedings – Accused permitted to approach High Court for quashing if subsequent enquiry by Registrar of Companies establishes that his name was wrongly shown as Director during period of offence [Final Para].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Order refusing discharge upheld – Liberty reserved to seek quashment on proof of favourable outcome of Registrar of Companies enquiry.

Service Law – Promotion – Non-Communication of APAR – Belated Communication in One Lot – Respondent communicated APARs for years 2008–09 to 2011–12 together in April 2013 just prior to DPC – Benchmark of 21/25 under Rules, 2012 not met – Held: Inordinate delay in communication frustrates object of APAR system – Violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 – Action arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 12, 17-18].

APAR – Purpose of Communication – Improvement and Representation – Supreme Court in Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh held every entry, whether adverse or not, must be communicated within reasonable time – Communication enables employee to improve performance and make effective representation – Belated communication defeats both objects – Sending APARs in one lot amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity [Paras 10.1-10.3, 11-14].

Benchmark for Promotion – Introduction under Rules, 2012 – 21 out of 25 for E-3 to E-4 based on last 5 years’ APARs – Though employer entitled to change rules and prescribe benchmark – However, employee cannot be prejudiced by employer’s failure to timely communicate APARs – Held: Benchmark cannot be applied to petitioner in circumstances of unfair conduct [Paras 8-8.1, 15, 18.4].

Natural Justice – Fairness in Administrative Action – Rules of natural justice flexible – Test is whether authority acted fairly – Inordinate delay without justification in communicating APARs amounts to unfair action – Right to be considered for promotion infringed due to arbitrary conduct of employer [Paras 11, 15-16].

Prejudice – Denial of Opportunity to Improve – Petitioner’s subsequent APARs (2012–13 onwards) graded ‘Very Good’/‘Outstanding’ after regular communication – Demonstrates importance of timely communication – Court held that earlier timely communication could have enabled petitioner to achieve benchmark – Employer’s lapse cannot operate to petitioner’s detriment [Paras 14, 18.2-18.3].

Right to Promotion – Distinction – No fundamental right to promotion but right to be considered is fundamental – When consideration denied due to arbitrary and unfair action of employer, Court can intervene under Article 226 – Held: Petitioner’s right to be fairly considered stood violated [Paras 15, 18.3].

Relief – Direction to DPC – Respondent directed to convene DPC within one month – Consider petitioner for promotion from E-3 to E-4 without applying benchmark under Rules, 2012 – If found eligible, grant promotion from date junior promoted with notional benefits and continuity but without monetary benefits [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Belated communication of APARs held arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and principles of natural justice – Respondent directed to reconsider petitioner’s case for promotion without applying benchmark of 21/25 under Rules, 2012 – Notional benefits granted if found eligible.

Commercial Law – Rejection of Plaint – Compliance with Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act – Suit filed on 31st July 2021, registered on 18th December 2021 – High Court had declared Section 12-A mandatory on 1st October 2021 in Deepak Raheja – Held: Since suit was filed prior to that date, plaint cannot be rejected for non-compliance with Section 12-A – Filing of suit is relevant date for determining compliance, not registration [Paras 8, 22(a)-(b), 31].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – No Cause of Action – Plaint alleges plaintiffs were beneficiaries under Master Restructuring Agreement (MRA) and Trust and Retention Account (TRA) agreements – Defendant no. 1 (SBI) was account bank and allegedly withheld funds due to plaintiffs – Suit also based on representations made in Joint Lenders Forum meetings – Held: Cause of action adequately pleaded; whether it is illusory or defective is a matter for trial – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) not warranted [Paras 23–29].

Limitation – Recovery Suit – Article 113 of Limitation Act – Plaintiffs claim right to sue accrued only upon discovery of facts on 21st May 2019 via NCLT proceedings – Suit filed on 31st July 2021 – Held: Cause of action within limitation as pleaded; limitation involves mixed question of fact and law to be determined at trial stage [Paras 30, 22(k), 29].

Mediation – Validity of Private Mediation – Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act read with 2018 Rules – Pre-litigation mediation attempted privately and failed – Held: Although private mediation does not fulfil mandatory requirement under Section 12-A, since suit was filed before Section 12-A was declared mandatory, rejection not warranted on this ground [Paras 5(a)-(b), 22(c), 31].

Practice and Procedure – Abuse of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Court discourages frivolous applications for rejection of plaint that delay commercial suits – Reiterates power to reject plaint must be used sparingly and only when clear grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are satisfied [Para 32].

Decision: Application rejected – None of the grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC satisfied – Suit to proceed to trial [Para 33].

Anticipatory Bail – Matrimonial Offences – Serious Allegations of Sexual and Physical Cruelty – Application under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail in FIR alleging dowry harassment, physical assault, sexual abuse including unnatural sex and attempted burning with cigarettes – Allegations spanning over two years of matrimonial relationship – Held: Case not a simple matrimonial dispute but involves grave and serious allegations warranting custodial interrogation [Paras 18–20].

Anticipatory Bail – Delay in FIR – Explanation Acceptable in Sexual Offences – FIR lodged after considerable delay – Explanation that complainant was traumatised, socially stigmatized and earlier attempts to lodge FIR were refused by police – Held: Delay in lodging FIR in cases involving sexual abuse and matrimonial cruelty is not fatal and does not discredit the prosecution case at the bail stage [Paras 12–13].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity – Recovery of Electronic and Physical Evidence – Allegations that accused possessed intimate photographs, hard disks, jewellery (streedhan), personal documents and electronic devices belonging to complainant – Held: Custodial interrogation necessary to recover crucial evidence, uncover full extent of offence and prevent tampering or misuse of sensitive material [Paras 14, 27–30].

Anticipatory Bail – WhatsApp Chats and Electronic Evidence – Prima Facie Assessment – WhatsApp communications containing abusive language, threats and intimidation relied upon by prosecution – Report under Section 65-B Evidence Act collected during investigation certifying genuineness of electronic evidence – Held: At anticipatory bail stage, Court can prima facie look into electronic material to assess gravity and necessity of custodial interrogation without conducting a mini-trial [Paras 15, 18].

Anticipatory Bail – Marital Consent – Bodily Autonomy of Spouse – Court observed that marriage does not imply automatic or perpetual sexual consent – Non-consensual and unnatural sexual acts within marriage cause physical and mental trauma and constitute grave offences – Held: Allegations of sexual assault within marriage cannot be trivialized at the stage of anticipatory bail [Paras 19–20].

Anticipatory Bail – Balance Between Personal Liberty and Societal Interest – While personal liberty is important, Court must consider seriousness of offence, societal impact, likelihood of repetition and need for fair investigation – No special or compelling circumstances shown to justify pre-arrest protection – Held: Grant of anticipatory bail at initial stage likely to hamper investigation [Paras 21–29].

Decision – Application rejected – Anticipatory bail declined – Trial court order upheld – Clarified that observations confined to bail stage and shall not prejudice regular bail or trial on merits [Paras 30–31].

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Husband alleged wife was quarrelsome, threatened to poison his blind parents, took his ATM card and money, and deserted him – Evidence led by husband found to be uncorroborated and lacking documentary support – In contrast, wife produced uncontroverted oral and documentary evidence including cybercrime and police complaints against the husband for uploading semi-nude images, digital abuse, and dowry-related harassment – Held: Cruelty not established by husband – Instead, cruelty by husband proved based on wife’s credible evidence [Paras 20, 40-44]

Family Law – Divorce – Desertion – Allegation by husband that wife deserted him since 19.05.2020 – Wife demonstrated she left due to cruelty, threats, and unsafe environment – Evidence showed she was compelled to leave due to abuse – Held: No voluntary or unjustified desertion by wife – Desertion not proved – Section 23(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act applied – Husband cannot take benefit of his own wrongdoing [Paras 33-37, 45-49]

Family Law – Perversity of Judgment – Husband claimed judgment of Family Court was perverse – High Court held trial court considered evidence thoroughly including respondent's uncontroverted witnesses and criminal proceedings substantiating her case – Held: No perversity or legal error – Family Court’s findings well-supported – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-22, 51-52]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Divorce denied – Judgment of Family Court upheld – No proof of cruelty or desertion by wife – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed of

Service Law – Seniority – Direct Recruitment – BSF – Petitioners were declared unfit in initial medical examination and appointed after being found fit in Review Medical Examination – Claimed seniority with batchmates who joined earlier pursuant to the same selection – Held: Rule 8(2) of the 2002 Rules governs seniority and mandates it to be based on date of continuous regular appointment – Rule 8(3) regarding merit applies only when date of appointment is same – Delay, even if not attributable to petitioners, does not override the statutory mandate – Petitioners cannot claim seniority along with earlier appointees [Paras 10-14, 26-27].

Statutory Interpretation – Rule 8 of BSF Recruitment Rules, 2002 – Rule 8(2) held to apply to all appointments including direct recruitment – Interpretation in Ram Pal Deswal limiting Rule 8(2) to promotions found erroneous – Proviso cannot restrict scope of main provision – Rule 8(3) is subordinate to Rule 8(2) – Seniority must follow date of regular appointment, not merit alone [Paras 18.7-18.13, 21.1-21.6].

Conflicting Precedents – Full Bench resolves conflict – Division Bench ruling in Ram Pal Deswal overruled – Shoorvir Singh Negi approved as correct exposition of law – Other decisions like Naveen Kumar Jha, Avinash Singh, Naresh Kumar and M.V. Sheshagiri held distinguishable or not binding due to absence of Rule-based analysis – Dinesh Kumar also distinguished as dealing with different issue [Paras 7, 20-25].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to seniority from date of selection process – Seniority to be reckoned from date of actual appointment – No costs [Paras 26-29].