Service Law – Age of Superannuation – The respondent, holding the post of Research Assistant, claimed to fall under the category of "Teachers" and sought retirement age of 65 years. The appellant-University contended that the respondent does not qualify as a "Teacher" and should retire at 60 years. The court upheld the respondent's claim, emphasizing his duties akin to teaching, and defined "Teachers" under Section 2(n) of the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988 to include such roles [Paras 1-28].

Judicial Scrutiny – Review of Designation and Duties – The court reviewed the duties performed by the respondent, which included classroom teaching, course designing, setting question papers, and other academic responsibilities typically assigned to teachers. The court relied on internal communications, recommendations, and previous court judgments to conclude that the respondent’s role fell under the definition of "Teacher" [Paras 29-34].

Decision – Reinstatement with Back Wages – The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Judge’s decision to quash the Office Order dated 04.09.2018, which fixed the respondent’s retirement age at 60 years. The respondent was ordered to be reinstated at the age of 65 years with 50% back wages from 31.12.2019 until reinstatement, along with other consequential benefits [Paras 35].

Bail Application – Section 439 of Cr.P.C. – Principles – Petitioner accused of serious offences including attempted murder – Consideration of factors such as length of custody, completion of investigation, and absence of criminal antecedents – High Court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Criminal Law – Presumption of Innocence – Right to Bail – Petitioner in custody for 43 days, investigation complete, and final report filed – No previous criminal record – Court held that further detention was unwarranted and allowed bail with conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent tampering with evidence [Paras 1-10].

Judicial Discretion – Bail Decision – Court exercised discretion judiciously and compassionately – Noted the importance of safeguarding individual liberty while ensuring the integrity of the investigation – Cited precedents emphasizing the fundamental right to bail [Paras 7-10].

Decision:

Application for bail allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties – Imposed conditions to ensure compliance and prevent interference with the investigation.

Criminal Law – Discharge Petition – Dismissal of Discharge Petition Challenged – Accused sought discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., arguing lack of prima facie evidence for charges under Section 509 IPC and Sections 11(1) and 12 of POCSO Act – Trial court dismissed discharge petition, finding sufficient grounds for proceeding with trial – High Court upheld trial court’s decision, emphasizing prima facie presence of elements constituting the alleged offenses and the necessity for trial to determine the accused’s culpable mental state and intent [Paras 1-13].

Sexual Harassment under POCSO Act – Presumption of Culpable Mental State – High Court highlighted Section 30 of POCSO Act, which presumes culpable mental state of the accused, requiring him to prove the absence of such mental state – Court noted that lifting of dhothi and asking minor victim to measure his penis were acts that prima facie fell within the scope of Section 11(1) of POCSO Act and Section 509 of IPC, necessitating trial for full examination [Paras 9-11].

Evidentiary Standards for Discharge – Prima Facie Case – Court reiterated principles for considering discharge petitions, including assumption of prosecution’s materials as true, non-consideration of defense evidence at this stage, and sufficiency of prima facie grounds for framing charges – High Court found that trial court correctly applied these principles in dismissing discharge petition [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Revision Petition Dismissed – Discharge petition rightly dismissed by trial court – Case to proceed to trial [Para 13].

Civil Procedure – Recovery on Promissory Notes – Defendant appealed against trial court’s decree in favor of the plaintiff for recovery of sums due on two promissory notes – Defendant claimed notes were forged and plaintiff lacked capacity to lend – Trial court’s judgment upheld, appeal dismissed – Defendant’s plea that her name was misstated as Saroja instead of Sarojamma found baseless – Evidence confirmed that defendant signed as Saroja in various official documents [Paras 1-20].

Burden of Proof – Negotiable Instruments – Trial court properly applied presumption under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Plaintiff demonstrated execution of promissory notes and capacity to lend – Defendant failed to rebut presumption or provide substantive evidence against consideration – Apex Court precedents emphasized presumption of consideration unless adequately disproved by defendant [Paras 12-18].

Defendant’s Identity and Signature – Plea of Forgery – Defendant’s contention regarding incorrect name and forgery dismissed – Documentary evidence confirmed defendant’s use of the name Saroja – Scribe of promissory notes corroborated plaintiff’s case, while defendant failed to present credible counter-evidence [Paras 16-17].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Decree and judgment of the trial court affirmed – No costs awarded – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 19-20].

Property Law – Declaration of Title – Appeal against the judgment partially affirming the decision of the lower court – Plaintiff sought declaration of right, title, and interest and recovery of possession – Defendant admitted plaintiffs’ ownership of the land but claimed tenant rights – Trial and first appellate courts ruled in favor of the defendant based on lack of documentary evidence from the plaintiffs – Held, plaintiff failed to prove ownership despite defendant’s admission – Decision of lower courts upheld with specific directions for detailed assessment of tenancy status and property possession [Paras 1-35].

Burden of Proof – Admission by Defendant – Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act – Defendant’s admission regarding ownership insufficient to grant declaration of title without corroborative evidence – Admission can establish facts not requiring proof but does not eliminate the necessity of proving ownership claims – Held, admission by defendant alone not adequate for a decree of ownership without supporting documentary evidence [Paras 28-32].

Tenancy Rights – Eviction – Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 – Defendant claimed tenancy rights under the Act, contested eviction – Court reviewed compliance with statutory pre-conditions for eviction – Held, defendant’s tenancy status not conclusively established, eviction ordered based on factual findings and inconsistencies in defendant’s claim [Paras 17, 24-26].

Procedure – Local Commission under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC – Court considered need for local commission to ascertain factual details of property – Ruled unnecessary due to clear admission of property identity in pleadings – Relief granted for eviction based on existing evidence [Paras 15, 32].

 Decision:   

Appeal allowed – Plaintiffs granted relief of eviction against the defendant from Schedule B land – Matter remanded for fresh assessment of tenancy status and property possession – Directions issued for proper evaluation and compliance with procedural requirements for eviction under tenancy laws [Paras 33-35].

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Requirement for Preliminary Enquiry – Petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with a request to refer it for preliminary enquiry – Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, returned the application citing non-compliance with procedural requirements – High Court noted that while petitioner lacked receipts for stolen motor pump set and wires, this alone could not justify denying reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Directed Judicial Magistrate to refer the complaint for enquiry without insisting on receipts, provided other conditions were met [Paras 3-7].

Decision: Criminal Original Petition allowed – Judicial Magistrate directed to refer the petitioner’s complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for preliminary enquiry without requiring receipts for the stolen items, if other procedural requirements are met.
 

Motor Vehicle Accident – Claim under Section 163A – Entitlement of Legal Representatives – Appeal against the Tribunal’s order denying compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act – Tribunal held the insurance company not liable as the deceased was riding the vehicle owned by his father – High Court converted the claim to Section 166 considering negligence – Compensation awarded with future prospects and general damages [Paras 1-24].

Liability of Insurance Company – Driving by Deceased – Insurance company contended policy did not cover the owner driving the vehicle – High Court noted the insured’s son, as a third party, entitled to claim – Compensation assessed under Section 166 for just compensation [Paras 13-20].

Determination of Compensation – Multiplier Method – Future Prospects – Compensation calculated using the multiplier method – 40% added for future prospects – Deduction for personal expenses at 50% as the deceased was a bachelor – General damages for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and pain and suffering enhanced by 20% since 2017 [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Compensation of Rs. 6,88,800/- awarded with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till deposit – Respondent insurance company directed to deposit the amount within six weeks – Tribunal judgment set aside [Paras 24-29].
 

Service Law - Judicial Review – Departmental Enquiry – Second Enquiry Not Permissible – Petitioner challenged the initiation of a second disciplinary enquiry on the same charges after the first enquiry was completed – Court held that a second enquiry is impermissible under law if the first enquiry decided the allegations on merits – Second enquiry deemed void [Paras 14-16].

Natural Justice – Cross-Examination – Violation – Petitioner was denied the opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses during the second enquiry – Court emphasized the importance of cross-examination to ensure a fair trial – Inquiry conducted without allowing cross-examination held to violate principles of natural justice [Paras 17-20].

Personal Hearing – Decision Making – Decision of Board of Directors challenged as it was made by members who did not hear the petitioner personally – Court held that the authority that hears the arguments must be the same authority to pass the decision – Decision made by members who did not hear the petitioner deemed invalid [Paras 21-26].

Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings – Prejudice – Court noted the 14-year delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings caused significant prejudice to the petitioner, including mental distress and financial loss – Delay attributed to the Opposite Party [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned order of compulsory retirement set aside – Opp. Party directed to settle retirement dues and pay interest on delayed payments – Proceedings deemed legally untenable due to multiple violations of natural justice [Paras 31-33].

Criminal Law – Conviction – Appeal – Validity of Evidence – Appellant convicted for repeated rape and criminal intimidation of step-daughter, aged 12, leading to pregnancy – Defense argued on grounds of improbable prosecution narrative, unreliable evidence, delay in FIR, and manipulated documents – Prosecution relied on consistent and corroborated testimonies, medical evidence, and timely police action – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-17].

Sexual Offenses – Minor Victim – Testimonies and Corroborative Evidence – Victim’s detailed account of abuse supported by mother’s testimony and medical confirmation of pregnancy – Delay in FIR deemed reasonable under circumstances – Appellant’s behavior patterns supported credibility of allegations – Court found no merit in arguments of unreliable evidence or manipulated documents [Paras 12-16].

Preventive Measures – DNA Test – Considerations for Victim’s Safety – Inquiry on absence of DNA test during pregnancy – Prosecution cited risks to victim and fetus – Court found explanation reasonable, emphasizing safety and well-being of victim and unborn child [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence confirmed – Prosecution successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt [Para 17].