Service Law – CRPF – Dismissal from Service – Absence Without Leave – Wilful Misconduct – Petitioner, enrolled in CRPF on 01.11.2006 and serving as Constable (CT/WC), proceeded on sanctioned leave from 19.05.2018 to 05.06.2018 – On expiry, could not report due to road accident causing foot injury – Subsequently hospitalised at Christian Medical College, Ludhiana from 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019 for non-healing ulcer of the left foot – Respondents, without considering medical record, declared petitioner a proclaimed person/deserter vide order dated 15.12.2018 under Rule 31, CRPF Rules, 1955 and dismissed him ex parte vide order dated 25.04.2019 under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 – Held: Absence accompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence cannot be presumed to be wilful – Medical record neither discredited nor meaningfully considered – Finding of wilfulness stood vitiated – Orders set aside – Petitioner reinstated with continuity and arrears of salary at 6% interest [Paras 2–6, 20, 33–34].

Desertion vs. Absence Without Leave – Animus Deserendi – Rule 31, CRPF Rules, 1955 – Distinction between desertion and absence without leave necessarily depends on the animus of the absent member – Where absence is traced to medical incapacity and not to any intent to permanently remain away, the charge of desertion cannot be sustained – Mechanical invocation of Rule 31 without reconciling petitioner's medical condition or examining whether he was incapacitated rather than absconding amounts to non-application of mind – Statutory power cannot be exercised in abstraction of facts and must be tethered to reason – Charges framed under Section 11(1) read with Rule 27 for minor offences could not have been escalated to dismissal by conflating absence without leave with desertion [Paras 21–23].

Natural Justice – Ex Parte Enquiry – Effective Service – Mere dispatch of notices does not satisfy the mandate of fair opportunity – An administrative order visited with civil consequences must be preceded by real and effective opportunity of being heard – Respondents failed to establish actual or constructive service in a manner ensuring the petitioner's participation – Ex parte enquiry conducted in such circumstances constitutes a façade of fairness rather than genuine compliance with principles of natural justice [Paras 8, 28–29].

Proportionality of Punishment – Doctrine of Proportionality – Judicial Review – Scope – Punishment must suit both the offence and the offender – Dismissal, the harshest penalty, imposed upon a petitioner in service since 01.11.2006 for absence intertwined with medical exigencies is shockingly disproportionate – Courts may interfere where punishment is vindictive, unduly harsh, or in outrageous defiance of logic – Discipline and individual dignity are complementary constitutional values; State as employer in a uniformed force remains bound by fairness under Articles 14 and 21 [Paras 24–27, 30–32].

Scope of Judicial Review – Article 226 – Service Jurisprudence – Judicial review is not limited to procedural infirmities but extends to cases where findings are perverse, material evidence is ignored, or punishment is disproportionate – Where no reasonable grounds exist for formation of the authority's opinion, judicial review is permissible – A finding based on no evidence, as opposed to one merely against the weight of evidence, constitutes an abuse of power [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 15.12.2018 declaring petitioner as deserter/proclaimed person and order dated 25.04.2019 dismissing him from service set aside – Petitioner directed to be reinstated with continuity for all purposes – Respondents directed to release all consequential benefits including arrears of salary with interest at 6% p.a. within six weeks from receipt of certified copy of the order [Para 34].

Mining Lease – Lapse of Rights – Cut-off Date under Section 10A(2)(c) – Effect of Non-execution of Lease Deed – Petitioners granted mining lease on 08.01.2017 but lease deed not executed before statutory deadline of 11.01.2017 – Authorities held application became ineligible – High Court examined whether delay attributable to State/Union and non-decision on forest clearance affected petitioner’s rights – Held: Inaction of authorities, particularly failure to decide application dated 20.08.2011 as directed by Supreme Court, materially impacted petitioner’s ability to comply – Matter required reconsideration in light of statutory scheme and administrative lapses [Paras 40–41, 48–49].

Statutory Interpretation – “Grant” of Mining Lease – Section 10A(2)(c) MMDR Act and Rule 8(4) of 2016 Rules – Whether grant is complete upon issuance of letter of intent/order or only upon execution and registration of lease deed – Held: Scheme indicates that mere grant order does not confer vested right unless conditions including execution are fulfilled, however such requirement cannot operate harshly where delay is attributable to State authorities [Paras 28, 45–47].

Forest Clearance – Requirement under Forest (Conservation) Act – Deleted Forest Land – Supreme Court directions dated 08.09.2016 mandating determination of nature of land and decision on approval application – No decision taken by MoEF&CC despite binding directions – Held: Authorities cannot rely on absence of clearance when they themselves failed to decide application within stipulated time [Paras 41, 33–37].

Administrative Inaction – Effect on Statutory Rights – Petitioner's inability to execute lease deed linked to pending approvals and lack of response from authorities – Held: State cannot take advantage of its own delay to defeat accrued rights under saving clause of Section 10A(2)(c) [Paras 26–27, 48].

Vested Rights – Letter of Intent and Grant Order – Whether enforceable right accrues prior to execution – Held: No absolute vested right arises merely on issuance of LOI or grant order, but rights crystallize where petitioner has complied and delay is not attributable to it [Paras 45–46].

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Impugned communication dated 17.11.2017 and consequential actions subject to reconsideration – Authorities directed to re-examine petitioner’s claim in light of Supreme Court directions and administrative lapses, including failure to decide forest clearance application – Appropriate decision to be taken in accordance with law.

Arbitration – National Highways Act – Applicability of Section 29A of Arbitration Act – Statutory arbitration under Section 3G(5) – Whether time limit for making award applies – Held Section 29A inapplicable as NH Act is special self-contained code – Provisions relating to extension, substitution and termination of mandate inconsistent with scheme of NH Act – Application would render statutory mechanism unworkable – Appeals dismissed [Paras 31–35, 38–40, 48–49]

Arbitration – Legislation by reference – Applicability of subsequent amendments – Arbitration Act applied to NH Act only to extent not inconsistent – Test of intention and unworkability applied – Section 29A excluded due to conflict with statutory scheme [Paras 32–34]

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Section 3G(5), NH Act – Exclusive power of Central Government – Court cannot substitute arbitrator under Section 29A(6) – Special law overrides general law – Inconsistency leads to exclusion of Section 29A [Paras 38–41, 44–45]

Arbitration – Delay in making award – Award passed after about six years – Whether void – Held delay does not render award without jurisdiction in statutory arbitration under NH Act – Remedy lies under Article 226 in case of unreasonable delay [Paras 49–50]

Land Acquisition – Determination of compensation – Section 26, RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Arbitrator relied on multiple comparable sale instances – Higher value transactions considered – Uniform rate justified based on location and potential – No patent illegality [Paras 52–57, 65–69, 71]

Land Acquisition – Rejection of sale instances by Competent Authority – Majority of sale deeds discarded without reasons – Arbitrator entitled to reassess evidence – Approach consistent with law laid down by Supreme Court [Paras 54–56]

Arbitration – Scope under Sections 34 and 37 – Limited interference – No re-appreciation of evidence – Interference only in case of patent illegality or perversity – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 60–63, 74–75]

Land Acquisition – Multiplication factor – Classification as rural land – Application of factor of 2 upheld based on notification and findings of fact – No error found [Para 72]

Decision: All Arbitration Appeals dismissed – Section 29A held inapplicable to arbitrations under National Highways Act – Arbitral awards upheld – No interference warranted under Section 37.

Income Tax – Section 131(1A) – Summons for Investigation – Challenge on Ground of Malafide – Not Established – Petitioner challenged summons issued by the Income Tax Officer (Investigation) on 14.11.2025 requiring production of books of account, bank statements and property details, alleging it was issued at the instance of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax who is remotely related to defendants in a pending civil suit – Held: None of the respondents are parties to the civil suit; petitioner himself is not a party; the Tax Evasion Petition was received on 12.11.2025 and summons issued following Standard Operating Procedure; interim injunction in the civil suit was passed in April 2025, months before the summons; plea of malafide raised only in the writ petition and not in replies before the income tax authorities; plea based on Chartered Accountant's affidavit which was introduced after the summons and is afterthought – Malafide in fact not proved [Paras 24, 34].

Income Tax – Malice in Law – Legal Malafide – Distinction – Malafide in fact requires direct proof of ill will or improper motive; malice in law is an act done without lawful excuse or for purposes foreign to those for which power is vested – Where the statutory authority has acted on an anonymous Tax Evasion Petition following the prescribed SOP, allotting Unique Identification Number and obtaining approval of the competent authority before issuing summons, there is no question of malice in law or colourable exercise of power – Burden of establishing malafide is very heavy on the person who alleges it [Paras 26-35].

Income Tax – Section 131(1A) – Jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer (Investigation) – Not Raised in Writ Petition – Reading Section 131(1A) with Section 132(1), the Income Tax Officer is included as an authorized officer to issue summons on being authorized by the competent superior authority – Additionally, the ground of want of jurisdiction was never raised in the writ petition or in the petitioner's replies before the income tax authorities and was raised orally for the first time at arguments, which is impermissible – Held: No jurisdictional infirmity made out [Paras 40-42].

Income Tax – Section 131(1A) – Stage of Investigation – Confidentiality – At the stage of summons under Section 131(1A), the income tax authority is not required to disclose the reasons, source of information, line of inquiry or scope of ongoing investigation; details of such investigation are confidential and even exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act – Disclosure would defeat the purpose of investigation [Para 6].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Summons under Section 131(1A) held legal and not suffering from any infirmity – IA No. 4 of 2026 rejected – IA No. 3 of 2026 and all pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Certified Guardian – Time Limit for Application – Rule 5 – Petitioner, a specially-abled spinster, sought compassionate appointment as certified guardian of the minor child of her deceased brother (a Government employee) and his wife, both of whom died in a road accident on 04.07.2017 – The Compassionate Appointment Rules did not originally contemplate appointment to a certified guardian; the eligibility was created only by amendment on 09.04.2021 – Petitioner filed her application on 18.08.2022, five years after the date of death – Held: Petitioner's application is beyond the one-year time limit prescribed under the amended Rule 5; the exception under Rule 5 for minors is also inapplicable; compassionate appointment cannot be granted [Paras 11-15].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Applicable Rules – Date of Death vs. Date of Consideration – Conflict Between N.C. Santosh and Bheemesh – In N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka, the Apex Court held that the norms prevailing as on the date of consideration of the application are the decisive factor – However, in State of Karnataka v. Bheemesh, the Apex Court opined that where benefits under an existing scheme were enlarged by a modified scheme after the death of the employee, only the scheme in force on the date of death applies – Held: Compassionate appointment is an exception to regular recruitment; interpretation must depend on determinate and fixed criteria; greater emphasis on rule of law required; indeterminate factors such as the petitioner being a specially-abled spinster cannot override the prescribed time limit [Paras 14, 15].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Amended Rule 3(2)(iii) – Benefit Not Available Beyond Time Limit – Even though the 2021 amendment created eligibility for certified guardians of minor children of deceased government employees where both the employee and spouse are deceased, such eligibility is subject to the simultaneous amendment to Rule 5 prescribing a one-year time limit for filing applications – Petitioner's application filed after five years cannot be considered regardless of the genuineness of the claim [Paras 12, 13, 15].

Decision: Writ petition rejected – Tribunal's order and respondent's refusal of compassionate appointment upheld.

Civil Law – Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Liberal Approach – Delay Not a Bar – Petitioner, an uneducated and underprivileged widow who worked as a domestic help, filed suit challenging a Deed of Gift procured by her employer through fraud and forgery – During cross-examination of DW1, it was noticed that the Deed of Revocation executed on 13.02.2013 had not been incorporated in the plaint due to bona fide mistake and inadvertence – Amendment sought to incorporate facts of revocation and an additional prayer – Trial court rejected the application on the ground that the Deed of Revocation was itself invalid under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act and was irrelevant since the Deed of Gift was challenged as a forged document – Held: Delay is no ground for refusal of amendment; amendment does not change the nature and character of the suit; defendants can be compensated with costs; trial court erred in rejecting the application [Paras 11-14].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Merits of Amendment Not to be Examined – Court considering an application for amendment of pleadings cannot go into the merits or validity of the amendment; the only question is whether the amendment is necessary for determination of the real question in controversy between the parties – Trial court erred in holding that the Deed of Revocation was invalid under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act at the stage of considering the amendment application – Legal consequences of the revocation are to be decided at the final stage – Held: Merits of the amendment should not have been examined [Para 13].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 – Not an Absolute Bar – The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 was incorporated to curtail inordinate delay but does not operate as an absolute bar to amendment after commencement of trial – Where the petitioner is an uneducated widow who had to rely on her advocates and the omission was due to bona fide mistake, the amendment deserves to be allowed upon payment of costs – Amendment will not alter the cause of action or deprive defendants of any valid defence [Paras 11, 14].

Decision: Revisional application disposed of – Impugned order set aside – Amendment allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 15,000/- in favour of the defendants within four weeks – Amended plaint to be filed within four weeks; defendants at liberty to file additional written statement.

Criminal Law – Murder – Sections 302/34, 307/34, 509/34 and 506 IPC – Brutal daylight incident – Accused persons, armed with gun, knife and sharp-edged weapon (Daav), attacked deceased Chameli Devi due to land dispute – Deceased was knocked down, assaulted, beheaded and her head hung on a tree – Child witness also sustained firearm injury – Eyewitness account of PW-1 (informant), PW-2 and injured PW-8 found consistent on material particulars – Medical evidence establishing decapitation and abdominal injuries – Forensic evidence confirming presence of human blood on seized articles – Conduct of accused Lakhmi at spot (dancing near corpse with weapon) further corroborates prosecution version – Held: Chain of evidence complete and prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction affirmed [Paras 77–80]

Evidence – Child Witness – Competency and Reliability – Section 118 Evidence Act – PW-8 Krishna Kumar, injured eyewitness aged about 7 years at time of incident – Trial Court conducted preliminary examination to test understanding and capacity – Witness gave coherent, consistent account of assault, firing and beheading – Withstood lengthy cross-examination without material contradictions – No evidence of tutoring or embellishment – Presence at spot proved by injury and medical evidence showing firearm wound with blackening – Held: Testimony of injured child witness highly reliable, carries great evidentiary value and can independently sustain conviction without necessity of corroboration [Paras 61–72]

Evidence – Minor contradictions and inconsistencies – Appreciation – Alleged inconsistencies in testimony of PW-8 regarding presence of villagers and sequence after firearm injury – Explained in light of natural human conduct and surrounding circumstances – Witness fleeing after injury does not negate his presence or ability to witness occurrence – Distinction reiterated between normal discrepancies due to shock, trauma and lapse of time and material contradictions affecting core prosecution case – Held: Discrepancies trivial and do not dent credibility of prosecution [Paras 43–52]

Evidence – Injured witness – Evidentiary value – PW-8 being injured witness lends assurance to prosecution case – His presence at scene cannot be doubted – Medical evidence corroborates ocular testimony – Held: Testimony of injured witness entitled to great weight and reliability [Paras 51, 72]

Doctrine of Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus – Applicability – Argument that entire testimony must be discarded if part found unreliable – Rejected – Held: Doctrine not applicable in Indian criminal law – It is only a rule of caution – Court entitled to separate grain from chaff and rely upon trustworthy portion of evidence [Paras 53–56]

Defence Evidence – Alibi – Evaluation of defence witness – DW-5 projected as chance witness claiming no one present at spot at 4:00 PM – Statement inconsistent with prompt FIR (lodged at 04:30 PM mentioning incident at 03:15 PM) and with testimony of PW-7 who reached spot at 03:45 PM and apprehended accused – Failure to explain timeline discrepancy – Held: Defence version unreliable and rightly discarded; plea of alibi not established [Paras 57–60]

Criminal Trial – Non-examination of witness – Non-examination of Komal – Occurrence near his house – Held: Not fatal to prosecution – Evidence of eyewitnesses cogent and reliable – Moreover, witness was inimical to informant; defence could have examined him – No adverse inference warranted [Para 74]

Evidence – Recovery of weapons and forensic corroboration – Recovery of Daav and trident from appellant Lakhmi at spot – Knife and gun recovered on pointing out of co-accused – FSL report confirms bloodstains and presence of human blood – Medical evidence corroborates firearm injury – Non-recovery of empty cartridge not fatal in light of other clinching evidence – Held: Scientific and physical evidence fully supports prosecution case [Paras 75–76]

Criminal Law – Common intention – Section 34 IPC – Accused jointly lying in wait, armed with different weapons, surrounding and attacking deceased, and acting in coordinated manner – Role of each accused clearly established – Held: Common intention proved beyond doubt [Paras 1, 72, 77]

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 509/34 IPC upheld – Conviction of Languri and Yogesh under Section 506 IPC also upheld – Appellants to remain in jail to serve out sentence awarded by Trial Court.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Recovery of Deceased's Belongings – Conviction Upheld – Deceased had an illicit relationship with Appellant No. 2 (Shanno); after his marriage, the appellants planned his elimination – Deceased last seen leaving with the appellants on 25.07.2000 – At the instance of the appellants, two gold rings, a wrist watch, and a cloth tape (katran) used for strangulation were recovered; one ring recovered from sister of Appellant No. 2 and another from a goldsmith to whom Appellant No. 1 had sold it – Deceased's body thrown into river Ram Ganga but not recovered despite search – Held: Circumstances including last seen evidence, recoveries of articles belonging to the deceased identified by prosecution witnesses, and disclosure statements form a complete chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the appellants [Paras 20, 54–56, 60].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Not Standalone Proof – Last seen theory is only one of the circumstances in the chain; alone it is not sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt but when coupled with other proved circumstances it plays a vital role – Delay in lodging complaint after disappearance of deceased is not unnatural where the deceased was last seen voluntarily leaving with a known acquaintance and complainant made his own efforts to trace him before approaching police [Paras 48, 49, 50–53].

Recovery – Disclosure Statements – Presumption under Section 114 Illustration (a) – Gold rings belonging to deceased recovered at the pointing of appellants from the sister of Appellant No. 2 and a goldsmith — identified by prosecution witnesses including the maker of the rings — give rise to a presumption under Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the appellants had also committed the murder of the deceased – Non-examination or hostility of one witness (PW-6) does not vitiate the recovery as it stands corroborated by police witnesses from multiple U.P. police stations, DD entries, and remand application [Paras 39, 55].

Corpus Delicti – Non-Recovery of Dead Body – Not Fatal – Non-recovery of the dead body is not an absolute requirement for conviction in a murder case and is only one of the relevant factors — where other cogent and satisfactory proof of homicidal death is available through circumstantial evidence forming a clinching and definitive chain, conviction can be sustained even without recovery of the body [Paras 57–59].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Sections 365/34, 302/34, 201/34 and 404 IPC upheld – Appellants directed to surrender within two weeks to undergo remaining sentence [Paras 60, 61].

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Accidental Death vs. Homicidal Death – Appellants convicted for allegedly running a tractor over the deceased with an intention to kill at the instance of co-accused – The deceased was admitted to the District Hospital as an accidental injury case and the hospital communication to police also mentioned it as an accidental injury – The FIR was lodged more than 49 hours after the incident without plausible explanation – Eyewitnesses PW-2 and PW-3 contradicted PW-1 in cross-examination on the material point of taking the injured to the hospital – Defence witness DW-1 deposed that the incident was a road accident caused by a loaded tractor-trolley – Possibility of false implication on account of previous enmity cannot be ruled out – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; appellants entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 38-42].

Evidence – Delay in FIR – 49 Hours – No Plausible Explanation – Prosecution failed to satisfactorily explain delay of more than 49 hours in lodging the FIR despite eyewitnesses being present and accompanying the informant to the hospital – Delay gives opportunity for deliberation and embellishment of prosecution story – Hospital records (Ext. Ka-17) showed deceased was admitted as an accidental injury case – Held: In the absence of proper explanation for delay, evidence must be scrutinised meticulously; delay in the present case creates serious doubt about the prosecution version [Paras 33-39].

Evidence – Chance Witnesses – Internal Contradictions – PW-2 (Iftekhar Hussain) stated in cross-examination that he left the place of occurrence after 15 minutes and did not take the injured to the hospital – PW-3 (Arshad Ali) also stated he did not take the injured to the hospital and left for his village – These statements directly contradict PW-1 (the first informant) who stated PW-2 and PW-3 helped him take the injured to the hospital – Held: Material contradictions between prosecution witnesses undermine the reliability of the prosecution case [Paras 40, 41].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 28.11.2017 set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Appellants Irfan and Saleem (on bail): bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged – Appellant Faeem (in jail): to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case.