Service Law – Age of Superannuation – Central Health Service Doctors – Amendment to FR 56(bb) – Age of superannuation stipulated as 62 years with conditional continuation up to 65 years upon exercise of option – Continuation confined to teaching, clinical, patient care, public health and advisory functions – Challenge to amendment as arbitrary and unconstitutional – Held: 62 years is the normal age of superannuation – Continuation up to 65 years is enabling and conditional – No vested right to continue with administrative charge – Amendment valid – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 21-25, 56-61].

Service Conditions – Reduction in Rank – Exclusion from Administrative Posts after 62 years – Petitioners contended that restriction amounts to divestment of status and reduction in rank – Court held that administrative charge is assignment of duties and not substantive rank – No reversion, reduction in pay or change in cadre – Regulation of duties during extended tenure does not amount to reduction in rank – Condition attached to optional extension cannot be termed punitive [Paras 26-32].

Vested Right – Enhancement of Retirement Age – Whether Notification dated 31.05.2016 created indefeasible right to continue up to 65 years – Held: Age of superannuation is a condition of service amenable to amendment under proviso to Article 309 – No government servant has vested right in continuance of statutory regime – Subsequent amendment dated 11.08.2018 validly regulates conditions of continuation – No crystallised right to hold administrative post till 65 years [Paras 34-39].

Delegated Legislation – Scope of Power under Article 309 – Challenge on ground of lack of Cabinet approval and excess of delegated authority – Court held that Rule 56(bb) forms part of statutory Fundamental Rules framed under Article 309 – Nature of duties during extended tenure falls within “conditions of service” – Once rule is notified, internal procedure of approval not justiciable absent statutory mandate – Option form merely operationalises statutory rule – No excess of power [Paras 40-44].

Equality – Articles 14 and 16 – Differential Treatment of Doctors in CAPFs and Assam Rifles – Proviso to FR 56(bb) provides distinct retirement age for specified categories – Reasonable classification permissible – Petitioners failed to establish manifest arbitrariness – Alleged isolated deviations cannot invalidate statutory rule – No hostile discrimination established [Paras 45-49].

Promotion – Exclusion from Consideration after 62 Years – Petitioners challenged non-inclusion in seniority list for promotion to HAG after attaining 62 years – Court held that 62 years being normal age of superannuation, promotional rights do not extend beyond that stage as of right – Conditional continuation up to 65 years does not carry automatic entitlement to administrative promotions – Exclusion consistent with statutory framework [Paras 50-53].

Judicial Review – Policy in Service Matters – Court reiterated limited scope of interference in statutory policy decisions concerning age of superannuation and utilisation of personnel – In absence of manifest arbitrariness or constitutional violation, Court will not substitute its view for that of rule-making authority – Impugned amendment upheld [Paras 54-59].

Decision: Batch of writ petitions dismissed – Notification dated 11.08.2018 substituting Rule 56(bb) of the Fundamental Rules upheld – Age of superannuation of CHS doctors remains 62 years with conditional continuation up to 65 years limited to specified non-administrative functions – All pending applications closed [Paras 60-61].

Cheques drawn on State Bank of Patiala presented after its merger with State Bank of India – Cheques returned with remark “Funds Insufficient” and not “Invalid” – Contention that cheques became invalid after 31-12-2017 due to amalgamation – Held: Expression “within the period of its validity” in proviso (a) to Section 138 is elastic and may cover invalidity arising from merger – However, where cheque is dishonoured for “Funds Insufficient”, presumption under Section 146 NI Act operates – Whether cheque had become invalid and could not have been honoured is a triable issue – Cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC – Complaints not liable to be quashed [Paras 19–23, 29–31, 40–41].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Process – Disputed Questions of Fact – Accused relying on Acquisition Order and RBI Circular not produced before Trial Court – Cheques dishonoured for insufficiency of funds – Statutory presumptions under Sections 139 and 146 NI Act applicable – Rebuttal requires evidence – Held: Inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to decide disputed factual issues requiring trial – No interference with orders issuing process [Paras 13–15, 29–30, 35, 37–39, 41].

Negotiable Instruments – Presumptions – Sections 139 & 146 – Cheque Returned for “Funds Insufficient” – Mandatory presumption that cheque was dishonoured – Onus shifts to drawer to rebut – Where return memo does not indicate invalidity but insufficiency of funds, burden lies on accused to establish invalidity at trial – Quashment at threshold impermissible [Paras 29–30, 32–34, 40–41].

Presentation of Cheque – Proviso (a) to Section 138 – “Within the Period of its Validity” – Interpretation – Term not confined only to period printed on cheque – May include circumstances rendering cheque invalid before expiry of printed validity – However, no straightjacket formula that merger automatically nullifies liability under Section 138 – Attendant facts and bank endorsement decisive [Paras 20–23, 40].

Decision: Applications under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – Orders of Magistrate issuing process and Sessions Court dismissing revisions upheld – No costs [Paras 42–43].

Employment Contract – Restrictive Covenants – Non-Competition Clause – Section 27 Contract Act – Appeal against refusal of ad interim injunction – Clause restraining employee from joining competing business for two years post cessation – Held, once employee ceased to be in service upon resignation, post-employment non-compete clause is prima facie void under Section 27 – Section 27 applies to partial as well as absolute restraints – Trial Court rightly refused injunction restraining respondent from joining rival concern [Paras 26-35, 51-54, 67-69].

Employment – Continuation in Service – Implied Contract by Conduct – Though confirmation letter dated 01-03-2024 doubtful and probation extended – Respondent continued to draw salary and tendered resignation on 08-10-2025 – By conduct, continuance of service till resignation established – However, resignation as probationer not invalid for want of 30 days’ notice since no penal consequence stipulated in Clause 15 – Employment ceased on resignation – Section 27 attracted post resignation [Paras 37-46, 48-52].

Non-Solicitation Clause – Distinction from Non-Compete – Clause restraining ex-employee from soliciting employer’s employees does not restrain employee from exercising his own profession – Section 27 not attracted to such covenant – Prima facie apprehension of “poaching” made out from contemporaneous communications – Ad interim injunction justified restraining respondent from soliciting or inducing appellant’s employees [Paras 53-55, 60-63, 70].

Confidentiality and Trade Secrets – Enforceability – Confidentiality clause and Non-Disclosure Agreement not hit by Section 27 – Company entitled to protect trade secrets, proprietary data and confidential information – Negative covenant enforceable under Section 42 Specific Relief Act – Imminent apprehension of disclosure sufficient at ad interim stage – Injunction granted restraining use or disclosure of confidential information [Paras 32-33, 56, 59-63, 70].

Injunction – Damages – Distinct Reliefs – Trial Court erred in holding damages to be adequate remedy in blanket manner – Claim for liquidated damages under Clause 15.3 distinct from reliefs enforcing confidentiality and non-solicitation covenants – Loss from disclosure of trade secrets and employee poaching not readily quantifiable – Monetary compensation not adequate substitute [Paras 57-63].

Appellate Interference – Ad Interim Stage – Appellate Court ordinarily confines itself to materials before Trial Court – No gross suppression established – Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury satisfied in respect of non-solicitation and confidentiality, but not non-compete – Order modified accordingly [Paras 64-67, 70-71].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Impugned order modified – Respondent restrained till disposal of temporary injunction application from (i) soliciting or inducing employees of appellant to leave service and (ii) using or disclosing confidential information or trade secrets of appellant – Refusal to restrain respondent from joining or continuing with rival company upheld – Observations tentative – CAN 1 of 2025 disposed of – No order as to costs.

Banking Law – Fraud Classification – RBI Master Directions – Declaration of account as “Fraud” during pendency of writ petition – Petitioners challenged show cause notices dated 28-02-2025 alleging non-supply of Forensic Audit Reports and relied upon documents – During pendency and after conclusion of hearing, bank issued letters dated 15-01-2026 declaring account as “fraud” – Held, action of bank in passing impugned orders without supplying requested documents and without considering petitioners’ request violates principles of natural justice – Orders dated 15-01-2026 set aside and quashed – Bank directed to furnish documents/allow inspection and thereafter proceed afresh in terms of law [Paras 1, 10, 16-21].

Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Supply of Forensic Audit Report – Petitioners contended that show cause notices were issued mechanically on basis of KPMG and Saxena & Saxena Forensic Audit Reports without furnishing copies thereof or underlying documents – Held, where FAR forms basis of show cause, effective opportunity of reply requires supply of relevant documents sought – Non-supply renders subsequent declaration unsustainable [Paras 4-9, 16-18].

RBI Master Directions – Summary Procedure – Balance between Speed and Fair Hearing – Respondent relied on earlier decision in Hemant Kanoria v. Bank of India – Court reiterated that though fraud classification is summary in nature and time-bound, principles of natural justice must be read into the process – Procedure laid down in earlier judgment regarding issuance of show cause, furnishing of documents, inspection and supplementary reply to be followed – Mechanical adherence to speed cannot defeat fair opportunity [Paras 12-15, 17-20].

Judicial Review – Post-Hearing Developments – Bank’s action in declaring account as fraud after matter reserved for judgment – Held, passing adverse order during pendency of writ petition without addressing grievance regarding non-supply of documents amounts to arbitrary exercise of power – Writ court justified in setting aside such action and issuing procedural directions [Paras 1-2, 10, 17].

Decision: Impugned letters dated 15-01-2026 declaring petitioners’ account as “fraud” set aside – Respondent directed to supply documents specified in para 14 within two weeks or permit inspection if voluminous – Petitioners to file reply within two weeks thereafter – Bank to pass reasoned order within two weeks of receipt of supplementary reply – Writ petition and connected application disposed of.

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Regular Bail – Allegation that petitioner-wife abused and assaulted deceased-husband leading to suicide – FIR registered under Section 108 BNS – Court held that mere allegations of harassment without specific instigation or proximate act do not prima facie constitute abetment – Essential ingredient of mens rea and direct or indirect incitement not made out – Bail granted [Paras 7-8].

Abetment – Ingredients – Instigation and Mens Rea – To attract Section 108 BNS (corresponding to Section 306 IPC), prosecution must establish active role by instigation or intentional aid – Mere harassment or matrimonial discord insufficient – There must be positive action proximate to the time of suicide and clear intention to drive deceased to commit suicide – In absence of such material, offence not prima facie attracted [Para 7].

Bail – Principle of “Bail is Rule, Jail is Exception” – Petitioner in custody for about seven months – Investigation complete – Trial likely to take considerable time – Pre-trial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention – No useful purpose to be served by continued custody – Regular bail allowed with liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation if misuse [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned – Prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation of bail if petitioner involved in any subsequent case – Pending applications rendered infructuous.

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Victim’s Appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. – Trial Court acquitted all accused in case of fatal assault arising out of prior enmity – High Court held that though acquittal of A3 to A11 justified for want of proof of common object and corroboration, acquittal of A1 and A2 perverse in light of consistent eyewitness and medical evidence – Appellate Court can interfere where findings are contrary to evidence on record [Paras 25–27, 32–33].

Unlawful Assembly – Section 149 IPC – Common Object – Mere presence and omnibus allegations insufficient – No reliable evidence establishing common object of A3 to A11 to commit murder – Benefit of doubt rightly extended – Acquittal of A3 to A11 confirmed [Paras 23–25, 33].

Culpable Homicide – Conversion from Murder – Sudden Quarrel – Deceased intervened in dispute between A1 and P.Ws.1 & 2 – No prior enmity between deceased and A2 – Assault occurred in heat of moment without premeditation – Though injury inflicted on vital part, circumstances indicate absence of intention to commit murder – Offence falls under Section 304 Part I IPC and not Section 302 IPC [Paras 27, 31].

Individual Overt Acts – Appreciation of Evidence – Consistent testimony of P.Ws.1, 6 and 10 corroborated by medical evidence – Post-mortem confirms head injury consistent with eyewitness account – Minor lapses in investigation and non-examination of certain witnesses not fatal when core prosecution case proved – A1 liable under Section 324 IPC for assault with broken glass and under Section 342 IPC – A2 liable under Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 22, 26–31, 32].

Delay in FIR – Explained – Incident occurred at 8.00 p.m. – Complaint lodged at 12.30 a.m. after shifting injured to hospital – Delay natural in circumstances of securing medical treatment – Not fatal to prosecution case [Para 30].

Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Evidence of hostile witnesses not to be rejected in toto – Conviction can be based on reliable portion of testimony corroborated by other evidence – Conviction sustained on basis of trustworthy eyewitnesses despite some witnesses turning hostile [Para 29].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Acquittal of A1 and A2 set aside – A1 convicted under Sections 324 and 342 IPC – A2 convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC – Matter posted for hearing on sentence – Acquittal of A3 to A11 confirmed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Final Report – Section 482 CrPC – Sections 324, 353 IPC and Section 3(2)(e) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – Accused bus driver alleged to have overtaken and collided with the official vehicle of a judicial officer – Held: None of the charges are even prima facie sustainable as the essential ingredients of Sections 324, 353 IPC and Section 3(2)(e) of the Act of 1984 are absent – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 10, 19, 20].

Section 353 IPC – Assault or Criminal Force Against Public Servant – Ingredients – For an offence under Section 353 IPC, there must be actual assault or use of criminal force against a public servant on duty with the intention to prevent or deter discharge of duty – Mere obstruction is insufficient; there must be intentional physical force directed against the person – In the instant case, the incident was a brushing of the bus against the car during overtaking and the FIR discloses no criminal intent or mens rea to obstruct or deter any public servant – Section 353 IPC not attracted [Paras 11, 14, 15].

Section 324 IPC – Voluntarily Causing Hurt by Dangerous Means – Ingredients – An offence under Section 324 IPC requires that hurt must be caused by a dangerous weapon or dangerous means – Injury caused by shattering of car window glass as a consequence of a road incident does not constitute intentional use of a dangerous weapon or dangerous means by the accused – Section 324 IPC legally unsustainable [Para 16].

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – Section 3(2)(e) – "Public Property" – Scope – The category of public property covered by Section 3(2)(e) is a closed and specifically enumerated list – The provision cannot be extended by interpretative exercise to cover all forms of public property in a general sense – An official car of a judicial officer, though public property, is not a "means of public transportation or telecommunications" as contemplated under Section 3(2)(e) – The Act was not intended to govern isolated motor accidents lacking an element of assault and criminal force – Section 3(2)(e) not attracted [Paras 17, 18].

Decision: Crl.M.C. allowed – Final Report in Crime No. 847/2018 and all further proceedings in CC No. 367/2018 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha quashed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Alleged Derogatory Remarks on Assamese Women – Statement in YouTube interview alleging existence of a village in Assam where girls practice black magic and convert men into animals – FIR registered under Sections 196(1), 197(1), 353(2) BNS read with Section 67 IT Act and Section 4 of Assam Witch Hunting Act – Investigation culminated in charge-sheet – Held: Taking the statement at face value, essential ingredients of the alleged offences not made out – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 18, 28-30].

Promoting Enmity – Requirement of Two Groups – Section 196 BNS – Mere controversial or objectionable remarks not sufficient – Prosecution must show promotion of enmity between two or more religious, racial, linguistic or regional groups – Statement did not refer to two distinct communities nor promote disharmony between them – Mens rea absent – No offence under Section 196 BNS made out [Paras 20-22].

Imputations Prejudicial to National Integration – Section 197 BNS – No allegation that any class of persons cannot bear allegiance to Constitution or be denied citizenship rights – No assertion affecting sovereignty, unity or integrity of India – Ingredients of Section 197 BNS not attracted [Paras 19-20].

Statements Conducing to Public Mischief – Section 353(2) BNS – Requirement of false information with intent to promote enmity or hatred between groups – Impugned statement, though controversial, did not satisfy statutory threshold – No material showing likelihood of promoting hatred between communities [Paras 20-22, 28].

Obscenity – Section 67 IT Act – Publishing obscene material in electronic form – Mere reference to alleged tantric practices and sexual conduct, in context of narration, does not ipso facto amount to obscenity – Ingredients of Section 67 not satisfied [Para 23].

Assam Witch Hunting Act – Identification or Stigmatization as Witch – Section 4 read with Section 2(g) – Offence requires identifying or defaming a person as “witch” implying power to harm society – Statement did not label any individual as witch nor attribute power to harm society at large – Essential element missing – Provision not attracted [Paras 24-27].

Inherent Powers – Scope After Filing of Charge-sheet – High Court empowered to examine FIR, charge-sheet and accompanying materials even after filing of charge-sheet – If allegations taken at face value do not constitute offence, proceedings liable to be quashed – Reliance placed on Bhajan Lal principles and subsequent precedents [Paras 15-17, 28-29].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – CID Cyber P.S. Case No. 01/2025 and Charge-sheet No. 01/2025 dated 08.09.2025 (corresponding Sessions Case No. 180/2025) quashed – Proceedings set aside.

Education – Government Employee – Permission to Pursue Higher Studies – Distance Education Mode – Petitioner appointed as Veterinary Livestock Development Assistant sought permission to enroll in B.A. through Distance Mode without availing study leave – Application rejected on ground of non-completion of three years’ regular service and probation status – Held: As per Government instructions dated 09.11.2022, condition of three years’ service applies only where studies are pursued in regular mode requiring physical attendance – For distance/online mode where no study leave is required, no such condition is prescribed – Rejection order unsustainable [Paras 4–5].

Fundamental Rights – Right to Education – Article 21 – Right to pursue education at any stage of life – Court reiterated that right to education is concomitant to right to life and personal liberty – Denial of permission to pursue educational qualification without statutory basis amounts to infringement of fundamental right – Right to education recognized as inalienable human right – State obligated to facilitate educational advancement [Paras 6–8].

Service Law – Model Employer – Encouragement of Higher Qualification – Court observed that enhancement of educational qualification of employees serves public interest by creating a competent workforce – State as a welfare State and model employer has constitutional duty to support professional growth of its employees – Arbitrary restrictions contrary to this objective liable to be set aside [Paras 9–10].

Administrative Instructions – Conflict between Clarificatory Instructions and Parent Instructions – Clarificatory instructions dated 28.08.2023 issued by Superintendent held contrary to executive instructions dated 09.11.2022 issued by competent authority – Clarification cannot override substantive policy decision – Rejection based on such clarification held illegal [Para 11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 02.07.2024 set aside – Respondents directed to grant permission to petitioner to enroll in B.A. through Distance Education Mode – Petitioner not entitled to study leave and to maintain required standard of work – Leave permissible only during examination period [Para 12].