Service Law – Disciplinary Action – Second Marriage – Bigamous Conduct – CISF constable married another lady constable while first marriage subsisted – Disciplinary authority imposed penalty of compulsory retirement – Writ petitioner contended family pressure led to second marriage and sought leniency – Single Judge remanded matter directing imposition of lesser penalty – Division Bench held: Second marriage during subsistence of first violates Rule 21 of CCS (Conduct) Rules and Rule 18(b) of CISF Rules – It constitutes grave misconduct in a disciplined force – Compulsory retirement not disproportionate [Paras 16–18, 21].

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference – Quantum of Punishment – Court cannot substitute penalty unless it shocks conscience – High Court cannot fix cap on punishment while remanding matter to disciplinary authority – Judicial review is limited to examining whether punishment is so disproportionate as to warrant interference – Held: Direction of learned Single Judge to impose lesser punishment not sustainable in law [Paras 13, 18, 19, 21].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Standard of Proof – Second Marriage without Divorce – Departmental inquiry held – No procedural infirmity or violation of natural justice – Statements and documents established charge – Petitioner failed to prove divorce – Held: Penalty of compulsory retirement supported by material evidence and well within bounds of proportionality [Paras 14–17].

Public Employment – Conduct in Personal Life – Impact on Service – Member of disciplined force expected to adhere to conduct rules – Second marriage without legal separation adversely affects institutional discipline – Absence of criminal prosecution irrelevant to departmental misconduct – Held: Personal conduct in contravention of service rules warrants disciplinary consequences [Paras 16, 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 05.03.2024 in W.P. No. 14766 of 2018 set aside – Orders of disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities imposing compulsory retirement on writ petitioner restored and confirmed – Held: Penalty of compulsory retirement is not disproportionate and is justified in light of proven misconduct [Paras 21–22].

Prison Law – Furlough – Classification of Convicts – Constitutional Validity of Administrative Standing Orders – Petitioner convicted under Sections 304B, 498A, and 406 IPC – Sentence modified by Supreme Court and petitioner re-admitted to prison post-conviction – Application for furlough denied based on Clause F(3) of Standing Order No. 01/2019 which mandates a one-year watch period upon re-admission – Challenge to the Standing Order on grounds of lack of statutory authority, excessive watch period, violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution – Held: Clause F(3) supplements Rule 1223(1) of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 and enables jail authorities to assess post-re-admission conduct – Not violative of Article 14 or 21 – One-year watch period held reasonable to balance societal safety and jail discipline – No parity can be claimed with parole watch period of six months due to conceptual differences between furlough and parole – Classification between convicts who appeal and those who don’t is reasonable and based on intelligible differentia [Paras 1-50].

Administrative Law – Standing Orders – Validity – Director General (Prisons) issuing Standing Order No. 01/2019 pursuant to High Court direction to streamline furlough applications – Held: Standing Orders are supplemental instructions and not ultra vires – Administrative instructions permissible under general supervisory authority where they do not contravene any statute or rule [Paras 33-36].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Furlough Not an Absolute Right – Citing Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Narayan, furlough is a conditional and reformative measure, not an absolute legal entitlement – Denial based on eligibility rules or standing instructions does not violate fundamental right to liberty [Paras 36-39].

Criminal Procedure – No Right to Furlough – Petitioner cannot claim furlough as of right – Mandatory one-year watch post-re-admission is within the administrative competence of prison authorities – Application rightly rejected until petitioner completes watch period [Paras 34, 37, 47].

Service Law - Pension Law – Family Pension – Legal Heir – Second Wife – Claim Valid – Deceased government servant had divorced first wife and married respondent in 1993 – Marriage proven through oral testimony, housing documents, marriage certificate from Registrar, and witness depositions – Non-entry of respondent’s name in service record held immaterial – Held: Under Rule 54(7) of CCS (Pension) Rules, respondent entitled to family pension as legally wedded surviving spouse – Authorities unjustifiably denied her claim [Paras 8–11].

Evidence Act – Proof of Marriage – Secondary Evidence Admissible – Refusal of marriage registration due to husband's death did not discredit solemnization – Marriage proved through consistent oral and documentary evidence including testimony of eyewitnesses and public certificate – No rebuttal evidence led by appellants – Held: Courts below rightly relied on available evidence to recognize marriage [Paras 9–10].

Administrative Law – Service Record – Non-Nomination Not Fatal – Legal entitlement to family pension not dependent on nominee entry – Respondent’s status as Class-I legal heir once proved could not be defeated by procedural omission – Appellants’ own records acknowledged her eligibility – Held: Non-mention in records cannot override substantive rights under pension rules [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees dated 01.12.2021 (Civil Judge) and 25.09.2024 (ADJ, Jalandhar) upheld – Respondent held entitled to family pension as legally wedded wife of deceased employee – No infirmity found in findings of courts below – Decree affirmed – Decree sheet directed to be prepared [Paras 14–16].

Service Law – Regularization – Contractual Engagement – Outsourcing Policy – Petitioners engaged since 2011 under BKVY-DBSK project on yearly contractual basis sought regularization—State rejected claim citing project-based nature of posts and Finance Department’s directive to replace contract staff with outsourced manpower—Held: Mere labeling of posts as “project-based” cannot justify perpetual ad hoc engagement when work is perennial and integral to functioning of OLIC—Continuous and sanctioned engagement through due process cannot be replaced by outsourcing—Prolonged engagement (over 13 years) evidences institutional necessity—State’s reliance on undertakings not to claim regularization invalid where inequality of bargaining power exists [Paras 16–24].

Administrative Law – Equality and Fair Treatment – Article 14 – State cannot deny regular employment while continuing to extract permanent work under temporary labels—Replacement of one set of temporary workers by another violates principles in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh and Jaggo v. Union of India—Uma Devi not a shield to perpetuate arbitrary contractualism when initial engagement was legal and sanctioned [Paras 17–20].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Livelihood – Long-serving contractual employees performing essential and continuous duties acquire legitimate expectation of security—Administrative undertakings extracted under compulsion cannot override constitutional guarantees of fairness and dignity of labour [Paras 21–22].

Relief – Regularization and Creation of Posts – Court declined to order direct regularization in absence of sanctioned cadre posts—Directed authorities to examine creation of equivalent regular posts matching duties performed by petitioners and consider their engagement against those posts with age relaxation as needed—Pending such exercise, petitioners not to be disengaged [Paras 28–30].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of – Authorities directed to consider creation of suitable regular posts corresponding to petitioners’ functions and to continue petitioners in service till such consideration – No costs.

Criminal Law – Bail – Triple Murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Denial of Bail – Appellant, brother-in-law of late Atiq Ahmad, sought bail in connection with the daylight murder of witness Umesh Pal and two police guards – Allegation that appellant financed, sheltered, and conspired with co-accused including Guddu Muslim – Co-accused statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. corroborated by independent witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. – DVR recovered from appellant’s house allegedly contained footage of Guddu Muslim visiting after the crime – Section 65-B certificate produced – Court held that while detailed admissibility to be tested at trial, recovery and corroborative evidence form prima facie material establishing complicity – Distinguished from P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1157, as multiple independent and electronic evidences corroborate co-accused statements [Paras 23–33, 42–43].

Electronic Evidence – Recovery of DVR – Section 65-B Evidence Act – Prima Facie Admissibility – DVR and mobile phone recovered from appellant’s residence showing visit of Guddu Muslim post-crime – Original DVR being primary evidence – Court relied on Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1 – Held: At bail stage, recovery and certificate sufficient to consider prima facie involvement; forensic verification to be determined at trial [Paras 30, 39–41].

Bail Jurisprudence – Gravity of Offence – Societal Impact – Presumption Against Release – Court reiterated factors in Prashanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2005) 2 SCC 42, Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 – In heinous crimes causing public terror, liberty of accused cannot override societal interest – Seriousness, influence, and risk of tampering justify denial of bail [Paras 33–38, 45–48].

Statements of Co-accused – Evidentiary Value at Bail Stage – Though inadmissible as substantive evidence, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be considered for prima facie satisfaction when corroborated by Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements and other material – State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 followed [Paras 27, 29].

Result – Held: Prima facie evidence shows appellant’s active role in conspiracy by financing, sheltering, and facilitating key accused – Nature and gravity of offence, societal impact, and risk of witness intimidation weigh against bail – Criminal appeal dismissed – Bail refused [Paras 47–49].

Income Tax – Charitable Trust – Accumulation of Income under Section 11(2) – Compliance – Petitioner Trust filed Form 10 electronically within time, stating accumulation purpose as “medical, educational and social relief to members of Zoroastrian community and conservation, maintenance and upkeep of properties” – Resolution dated 26/09/2018 passed by trustees was disclosed and submitted to assessing officer during original assessment proceedings – Held: There was full compliance with Section 11(2) and Rule 17, including prescribed manner and time of submission [Paras 8–10, 16–21]

Reassessment – Section 148 – Change of Opinion – Assessment under Section 143(3) had already considered accumulation issue, including Form 10 and trustee resolution – Reassessment initiated solely based on audit objection that Form 10 lacked specific purpose – Held: No new information or tangible material – Reopening based on change of opinion is impermissible – Assessee cannot be faulted for limited space in prescribed statutory form [Paras 22–24, 26–30]

Judicial Precedents – Applicability – Gujarat High Court decision in CIT (Exemption) v. Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purshottam Public Charitable Trust [2019] 102 taxmann.com 122 cited with approval – Bombay High Court in Chandrakant Narayan Patkar Charitable Trust [2022] 138 taxmann.com 564 and Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. [2023] 154 taxmann.com 159 followed – Held: Assessing Officer has no power to review original assessment under the garb of reassessment [Paras 24, 29–30]

Decision: Impugned show cause notices under Section 148A(b), order under Section 148A(d), and notice under Section 148 dated 28/08/2024 quashed – Rule made absolute – Other grounds kept open – No order as to costs [Paras 31–33]

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Bribe Demand and Acceptance – Accused public servant allegedly demanded ₹1500 from complainant to release subsidy amount of ₹3000 – Trap conducted by ACB – Accused caught with tainted currency – However, Demand Draft for subsidy not found tainted – Evidence showed that DD was handed over before any contact with anthracene-laced notes – Held: Sequence of events raises serious doubt about prosecution’s version and falsifies theory of bribe being a precondition for release of subsidy [Paras 13–15, 19].

Evidence – Tainted Money – Anthracene Test – Prosecution case that bribe was accepted prior to handing over of DD contradicted by fact that DD showed no trace of anthracene – If DD was handled after bribe transaction, it would have shown traces – Court held that this absence indicated subsidy was already released before any money changed hands [Paras 13–15].

Defence – Legal Recovery – Appellant’s defence that ₹1500 was towards licence fees for fishing activity – Complainant admitted that further ₹500 was sought for issuance of receipt – Court held that no bribe giver demands receipt, and no officer issues receipt for bribe – Admission of demand for receipt strengthens claim of legal transaction – Held: Serious doubt created about nature of payment – Benefit of doubt must be given [Paras 16–17].

Criminal Trial – Evaluation of Evidence – Trial Court failed to consider key admissions of complainant and crucial aspect that DD was untainted – Mere delay in Appellant raising defence theory insufficient to discredit it – Absence of evidence supporting defence does not ipso facto prove prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 18–19].

Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act – Rebuttal – Though presumption arises upon acceptance of tainted money, court held that surrounding circumstances, including prior release of DD and demand for receipt, sufficiently rebut presumption – Held: Explanation offered by accused plausible and unshaken [Paras 16–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed to execute P.R. bond of ₹15,000 under Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 437A CrPC) [Para 20].

Criminal Writ – Quashing - Organised Crime – KCOCA Invocation – Prior Approval – Improper Invocation – Petitioner, accused No.12, was in police custody at the time of the alleged incident of conspiracy to commit dacoity – Inclusion of KCOCA against accused based solely on co-accused’s voluntary statement without independent corroboration – Held: No material existed to establish petitioner’s membership in organised crime syndicate – Prior approval under Section 24(1)(a) KCOCA was without basis and unsustainable – Inclusion of KCOCA quashed [Paras 2, 6, 7, 9, 10].

Criminal Law – Confession by Co-Accused – Admissibility – Petitioner implicated solely on the basis of voluntary statements of co-accused – No other evidence or corroborative material linking petitioner to the alleged offence – Held: Confession of co-accused not substantive evidence and inadmissible against petitioner – Proceedings based solely on such statement cannot stand [Paras 7, 8].

Criminal Conspiracy and Preparation for Dacoity – Ingredients Not Made Out – Petitioner was in custody in another case at the time of the alleged conspiracy and assembly – Held: Offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC require physical presence and preparatory acts – Allegations failed to meet statutory requirements – Quashing of entire proceedings justified [Paras 6, 8, 10].

Consistency and Parity – Equal Treatment with Co-Accused – Charges under KCOCA and related offences already quashed against co-accused (Accused No.11) in Crl.P. No.9819 of 2023 and W.P. No.16771 of 2017 – Allegations and circumstances against petitioner identical – Held: Petitioner entitled to parity – Quashing of proceedings warranted [Paras 7, 9].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Crime No.58/2017 and entire proceedings in Spl.C.C. No.414/2017 quashed as against petitioner (Accused No.12) – Observations limited to petitioner’s case and not to affect proceedings against other accused [Paras 10].

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 174 ampules of Lupigesic and 24 unlabelled ampules – Trial court sentenced appellant to 13 years of rigorous imprisonment with fine – Appellant challenged conviction citing procedural lapses including delay in production of contraband and non-compliance with mandatory provisions of NDPS Act – High Court found delay in production of contraband and absence of evidence regarding custody and storage – Held: Unexplained delay and missing specimen seal raise serious doubt about the integrity of prosecution case – Conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 1, 2, 23, 24, 26].

NDPS Act – Compliance with Sections 42 and 57 – Prosecution submitted Exhibits P1 and P13 to prove compliance – Court noted both documents were received by immediate superior officer on same date and within statutory limits – PW6’s testimony on handwritten numeric ‘1’ went unchallenged – Held: Compliance with Sections 42 and 57 established [Paras 7, 8].

NDPS Act – Section 50 – Applicability and Compliance – Contraband found in plastic kit carried by accused and inside pants pocket – Appellant informed of right under Section 50 and opted to be searched in presence of Gazetted Officer – Search carried out accordingly – Court held that while obligation to inform suspect is mandatory, taking accused specifically before Magistrate is not – Held: Procedural compliance with Section 50 satisfied – No violation of legal safeguards [Paras 9-15].

NDPS Act – Section 52A – Applicability – Entire contraband produced before court – Appellant’s contention that failure to comply with Section 52A vitiated case rejected – Court held Section 52A applies only when representative sample is produced – When full contraband is produced, compliance under Section 52A not required – Non-compliance not fatal to prosecution [Paras 16-21].

NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Charge framed in millilitres instead of grams – Appellant argued lack of conversion renders charge faulty – Court relied on chemical report (Exhibit P20) indicating strength of Buprenorphine per ml – Cumulative content converted to over 116 grams – Held: Charge not defective – Commercial quantity established through chemical evidence – No prejudice caused [Para 22].

Criminal Trial – Delay in Production of Contraband – Contraband seized on 21-10-2011 but produced before Court only on 27 or 28-10-2011 – No clear evidence regarding interim custody or storage – Property list lacked identifiable Magistrate’s signature – Specimen seal missing from seizure mahazar (Exhibit P11) – Court held delay unexplained and prejudicial to accused – Failure to establish chain of custody casts doubt on prosecution’s case – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 23, 24, 25, 26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 22(c) NDPS Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – Fine amount, if deposited, to be refunded [Para 26].