Service Law – Terminal Benefits – Gratuity and Provident Fund – Original writ petitioner was the dependent and physically incapacitated brother of deceased Assistant Teacher who died in service – Succession certificate obtained – Court held that even though not a minor, incapacity due to disability qualifies as dependency under Clause 5(s)(1) – Directed authorities to release gratuity and provident fund subject to proof of succession – Held: Petitioner entitled to terminal benefits [Paras 12-15, 17-18]

Family Pension – Scope of Eligibility – Under Clause 5(s)(2) of 1981 Scheme, only spouse, minor children, and dependent parents eligible – Brother and sister-in-law of deceased not included – Family pension claim rejected – No surviving eligible family member after death of mother – Held: Petitioner not entitled to family pension [Paras 13, 16-17]

Administrative Law – Delay and Inaction – Authorities failed to act despite earlier High Court direction in WP 17359(W) of 2017 – Respondents raised unjustified service record queries that petitioner could not answer – Court criticized inaction and directed resolution within eight weeks – Held: Delay caused undue hardship – Respondents to act promptly [Paras 7-9, 18]

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Direction to disburse gratuity and provident fund to substituted petitioner – Prayer for family pension rejected.

Service Law – Inter se Seniority – Assistant Commandants in SSB – Seniority lists issued in 2020 challenged by promotees, LDCE appointees, and direct recruits – Issue revolves around whether seniority should be fixed under Rule 5(2) (order of selection) or Rule 5(3)(iv) (date of continuous appointment) of the 2010 Recruitment Rules – Court holds that 2003 Rules stood fully superseded by 2010 Rules and were not applicable [Paras 25.1, 30(i)]

Statutory Interpretation – Supersession Clause – 2012 Recruitment Rules did not wholly supersede the 2010 Rules – Seniority clause (Rule 5) of 2010 Rules continued to apply – Use of phrase “method of recruitment” in preamble not wide enough to include provisions on seniority – 2010 Rules governed the issue of seniority post-2012 [Paras 25.5–25.9, 30(ii)–(iii)]

Seniority – Interpretation of “Order of Selection” – Rule 5(2) of 2010 Rules refers to “order of selection” but Rules do not define the term – Court holds that in absence of internal guidance, reliance on DOPT OM dated 24 June 1978 impermissible – OM held inapplicable as no recruitment roster exists in SSB – Seniority cannot be based on DOPT OM [Paras 28.1–28.4, 30(iv)–(v)]

Seniority – Applicable Rule – Where Rule 5(2) cannot be applied due to lack of definitional clarity, fallback is Rule 5(3)(iv) which mandates fixation of seniority based on date of continuous appointment – Held: Inter se seniority among all ACs (direct recruits, promotees, LDCE) must be determined under Rule 5(3)(iv) [Paras 27.4–27.5, 29.1–30(vi)]

Administrative Instructions – DOPT OMs & Parmar Case – Court rejects applicability of DOPT OMs dated 7 February 1986, 3 July 1986, 4 March 2014, and 13 August 2021, as well as Parmar judgment – Held: These are executive instructions and cannot override statutory rules – Not applicable where Rules exist [Paras 25.10, 30(vii)]

Seniority List – Validity – Final seniority lists dated 21 and 23 September 2020 quashed – Draft seniority list dated 5 June 2018 correctly applied Rule 5(3)(iv) for ACs appointed 2003–2012 – Court directs SSB to redraw seniority for all ACs including 2013–2016 appointees as per Rule 5(3)(iv) [Paras 29.2–29.3, 30(viii)]

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Final seniority lists dated 21/09/2020 and 23/09/2020 quashed – SSB directed to reissue seniority lists applying Rule 5(3)(iv) of 2010 Recruitment Rules for all Assistant Commandants, irrespective of mode of recruitment or year of appointment – No costs.

Bail – Second Application – Delay in Trial – Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 – Prolonged Incarceration – Petitioner in custody since March 2024 facing trial for offences under Sections 3 & 9 of the Official Secrets Act – Trial stagnating at pre-charge evidence stage due to prosecution’s repeated adjournments and non-filing of FSL report – Out of 18 witnesses, only 4 examined in 18 months – Held: Prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21 – Continued detention amounts to pre-trial punishment – Gravity of offence alone cannot justify denial of bail when trial is unreasonably delayed [Paras 6–11].

Official Secrets Act – Applicability of Section 3 – Mens Rea and Prejudicial Intent – Allegations do not prima facie disclose that the petitioner acted with intent prejudicial to the safety of the State – At best, Section 5 of the Act could apply – Whether Section 3 is attracted is a matter for trial – Petitioner facing trial before Magistrate where maximum sentence cannot exceed 7 years – Distinction drawn from State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 253 [Paras 3–4, 12].

Right to Liberty – Balancing Test – Judicial Approach – Courts must strike balance between individual liberty and societal interest – Denial of liberty cannot be based on administrative lethargy – Prosecution’s inaction in producing witnesses or securing FSL report cannot prejudice the accused – Citing Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 and Masroor v. State of U.P. (2009) 14 SCC 286, held that constitutional courts must intervene to prevent violation of fundamental rights [Paras 7–10].

Interpretation of Section 480(6) BNSS (437(6) CrPC) – Liberal Approach – Following Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) 5 SCC 140 – Bail under Section 480(6) must be considered liberally when trial delay is not attributable to accused, no chance of tampering, and incarceration is disproportionate to likely sentence [Paras 13–14].

Decision – Bail granted – Petitioner to furnish personal bond of ₹3,00,000 with two sureties of ₹1,50,000 each – To appear on all hearing dates and mark attendance at local police station in first and third week every month – To surrender passport and keep mobile phone active – Breach of conditions to entail cancellation of bail [Paras 14–17].

Civil Law – Title and Possession – Declaration and Recovery – Plaintiffs filed suit claiming title to Ava lands in Timmapuram village alleging wrongful classification as tank poramboke during 1960 survey – Defendants contended that land vested in Government post-abolition of Pithapuram Estate and was leased to Sanghams in 1976 – Trial Court decreed suit granting declaration and possession – High Court held plaintiffs failed to prove title or continuous possession – Held: Declaration of title requires proof of valid title; land revenue receipts and oral evidence insufficient [Paras 18-27, 42-44].

Estates Abolition – Classification of Lands – Ava Tank Lands – Plaintiffs contended classification as poramboke was illegal and lacked notice – Court found no challenge to classification from 1960 till suit filed in 1988 – Records (Ex.A.11) showed lands as Cheruvu Padaka (tank bed) not Zeroyiti – Held: No evidence of Zamindari pattas or valid change of classification – Tank lands not eligible for Ryotwari pattas under Section 3(g) of Abolition Act [Paras 24-25, 50-51].

Limitation – Recovery of Possession – Delay Unexplained – Plaintiffs alleged dispossession after 29.06.1976 but failed to mention exact date in plaint or prove it through evidence – Suit filed in June 1988 – No continuous cause of action or extension of limitation shown – Legal notices (Ex.A.9, A.49, A.146) insufficient to extend limitation for all plaintiffs – Held: Suit barred by limitation under Article 65 of Limitation Act [Paras 52-59].

Burden of Proof – Plaintiff's Failure to Establish Title – Court reiterated that in suits for declaration, burden lies on plaintiffs to prove title irrespective of weakness in defendants’ case – Admissions of plaintiffs in cross-examination showed lack of possession and title – Many plaintiffs did not even enter the witness box or file pattas – Held: Plaintiffs must stand or fall on strength of their own title [Paras 20-22, 26, 43-44].

Binding Precedent – Previous Suit in Similar Lands – Plaintiffs relied on O.S. No. 149/1977 – Court held that judgment in earlier case not binding since plaintiffs and lands in current case were different – Findings in that suit cannot operate as res judicata or bind present parties [Para 47, 49].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Decree and judgment of Trial Court set aside – Suit dismissed – No costs.

Service Law – Anganwadi Selection – Challenge to Selection Process – Appellant alleged denial of marks for experience and bias in interview process – However, no certificates substantiating claims were produced before Selection Committee – No selected candidate was impleaded – Held: Mere general allegations without proof or proper parties cannot vitiate selection process – Writ appeal dismissed [Paras 2-4, 6].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Discretion of Selection Committee – Court reiterated that judicial review of interview marks is limited – Allocation of marks lies within discretion of Selection Committee unless process is palpably arbitrary or mala fide – No such case made out – Held: Courts will not substitute their opinion with that of Selection Committee [Paras 3, 6.1].

Procedural Fairness – Non-Impleadment of Selected Candidates – Appellant sought to set aside appointments without impleading selected candidates as parties – Held: Relief cannot be granted affecting others’ rights in their absence – Petition rightly dismissed on that ground as well [Para 6].

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed – No infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge – Selection process upheld [Para 6.1].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Discharge – Petitioner, a Building Inspector, sought discharge from corruption charges arising from illegal construction of hotel in restricted heritage zone – Prosecution alleged conspiracy with building owner (A-6) and failure to act despite prior complaints – Court held that prima facie evidence including complaints dated 13.09.2006 and 25.11.2006, duty records, and witness statements indicate culpable omission – Held: Discharge rightly rejected by Special Court [Paras 3-12].

Conspiracy – Public Servant’s Omission – Wilful Inaction – Revision Petitioner was duty-bound to inspect and act upon a complaint dated 13.09.2006 – Court found that despite being present and on squad duty, Petitioner failed to take timely action, enabling near-completion of illegal building – Held: Petitioner’s omission facilitated offence, forming sufficient basis for prosecution – Discharge not permissible at this stage [Paras 8, 10-12].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Discharge – Section 239 CrPC – Court reiterated that discharge is maintainable only where prosecution records fail to disclose strong suspicion or prima facie involvement – Held: Conspiracy cannot be ruled out solely on plea of late joining or post-facto actions – Trial court to decide involvement based on evidence – No interference warranted in revisional jurisdiction [Paras 10-12].

Decision:

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Interim stay vacated – Special Court directed to expedite the trial [Paras 13-14].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Security Cheques – Legally Enforceable Debt – Petitioner challenged summoning orders on ground that cheques were issued only for security and not towards any enforceable liability – MoU dated 06.05.2014 explicitly stated cheques were issued for showing to bank and not for deposit – Court held that mere presentation of security cheques without crystallised liability does not attract Section 138 – Held: Complaints under Section 138 N.I. Act based on such security cheques not maintainable [Paras 10-12, 32-38, 43-44, 59].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Summons – Territorial Jurisdiction – Summoning orders initially passed by Magistrate at Bellary returned for lack of jurisdiction – Complaints reassigned to Delhi Court without fresh summoning orders – Held: Adoption of void summoning orders by Delhi Court without independent application of mind is illegal – Summons liable to be quashed as they became non-est in law [Paras 6, 7, 16, 45-58].

Criminal Law – Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Court's power to quash proceedings – Where uncontroverted documents of unimpeachable character (like MoU) show absence of legal liability – High Court empowered to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process – Held: MoU being admitted by both parties could be relied upon at the pre-trial stage to quash complaint [Paras 39-44].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Summoning orders dated 27.04.2015, 08.04.2015, and 18.05.2015 quashed – Proceedings in CC Nos. 15098/2016, 15410/2016, 15373/2016, 1540/2019, and 1541/2019 pending before Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, also quashed – Petitions disposed of [Paras 59-61].

Criminal Law – Section 21, 25, 29 of NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Bail Rejected – Petitioners, Nigerian nationals, arrested with 500g and 300g heroin respectively, also linked to further recovery of 4 kg of chemical substances used for drug preparation – Involvement in manufacturing process alleged – Held: Recovery falls under ‘commercial quantity’ attracting Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin conditions for bail not satisfied – Bail refused [Paras 2-4, 16-17].

Foreign Nationals – Illegal Entry – Forged Passports – Petitioners unable to prove valid immigration or nationality – Furnished fake accommodation and identity details – No arrival/departure stamps on passports – Attempted to mislead authorities by falsely claiming to be from UK and Singapore – Held: Petitioners are flight-risks and misuse of forged documents warrants continued custody [Paras 11, 19-20].

Constitutional Law – Violation of Article 22(1) – Grounds of arrest not supplied in writing – Petitioners claimed arrest invalid under Constitution and NDPS Act – Held: No prejudice shown due to procedural lapse – As per Supreme Court in Darshan (2025 INSC 979), mere procedural lapses do not ipso facto vitiate arrest or entitle bail [Paras 7, 14-15].

Delay in Trial – Prosecution examined only 2 out of 13 witnesses in over 4 years – Petitioners alleged violation of Article 21 – Held: Liberty must be balanced with public interest – In view of serious charges and bar under Section 37 NDPS Act, delay alone not sufficient ground for bail [Paras 5-6, 18].

Search & Seizure – No Independent Witnesses or Videography – Petitioners challenged validity of recovery – Held: Absence of videography/independent witness not fatal – Police evidence cannot be disbelieved solely on that basis – Cited precedents: Surinder Kumar, Kallu Khan, Ram Swaroop [Paras 8, 12-13].

Decision: Bail applications dismissed – Petitioners to remain in custody – No expression on merits of the case [Paras 20-21].

Criminal Law – Cruelty – Section 498-A IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Allegations by wife of physical torture, dowry demand, and attempted strangulation by husband – Delay of one month in lodging complaint not explained contemporaneously – Complainant failed to mention serious allegations like throttling and paternity denial in FIR – Introduced new accusations only during trial – Held: Prosecution failed to establish case beyond reasonable doubt – Serious inconsistencies in dates, medical evidence, and testimonies created doubt as to veracity of prosecution story – Conviction under Section 498-A IPC set aside [Paras 5, 10-12, 22-23, 25]

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – FIR and Medical Evidence Contradictions – FIR alleged head injury from iron rod and bleeding, but medical report did not confirm injury – Doctor admitted she could not confirm source of bleeding or strangulation – Carbon copy of injury report had inconsistent date – Held: Medical evidence failed to corroborate prosecution version – Serious doubt cast on occurrence and severity of assault [Paras 11, 22]

Delay in FIR – Unexplained Inordinate Delay – FIR lodged nearly one month after incident dated 15.02.2010 – Explanation of illness raised only during trial without corroboration – No supporting medical records or witness testimony to justify delay – Held: Inordinate delay unexplained and undermines prosecution case [Paras 9, 24]

Misuse of Section 498-A – Matrimonial Disputes – Multiple Cases Filed by Complainant – All resulted in acquittals – Complaint in present case also contained vague and exaggerated allegations – Held: In light of Supreme Court's caution against misuse of Section 498-A in Dara Laxmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, and Achin Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana, prosecution version required strict scrutiny – No clear prima facie case made out against appellant [Paras 24]

Burden of Proof – Failure to Prove Charges Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, contradictions with documentary evidence, failure to produce Panchayat records or resolution, and no evidence of prior incidents of cruelty – Held: Prosecution failed to discharge burden – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 18-21, 23, 25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 498-A IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Connected applications disposed of – Urgent certified copy to be issued on compliance with formalities.