Bail Petition – Regular Bail Granted to Former Chief Minister  - Alleged Financial Irregularities in Skill Development Project -

The petitioner, Sri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu, sought regular bail regarding allegations of corruption and financial irregularities in the APSSDC skill development project. The charges include misappropriation of funds, evasion of government norms, and involvement in a deep-rooted conspiracy resulting in significant financial losses to the state exchequer. The court granted bail, considering factors like the petitioner’s age, health condition, lack of direct evidence linking him to the crime, and the fact that other co-accused had already been granted bail. [Paras 1-57]

Allegations and Counter Arguments – No Direct Evidence Linking Petitioner - Despite serious allegations of financial misconduct and corrupt practices in the skill development project, the prosecution failed to present prima facie material directly linking the petitioner to the crime. The court observed gaps in the investigation, including lack of evidence connecting the petitioner to alleged misappropriated funds, and contradictory findings in the forensic audit report. [Paras 20, 22, 33, 34, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46]

Health and Security Concerns – Considerations for Bail - petitioner’s health conditions and age (73 years) were significant considerations. He suffers from diabetes, hypertension, and Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy, requiring regular medical attention. Additionally, the presence of Z+ security from the National Security Guard (NSG) reduces flight risk and ensures compliance with bail conditions. [Paras 4(iv), 49, 50]

Freedom of Speech and Political Activity – Relaxation of Conditions:

The court acknowledged the petitioner’s right to freedom of speech and political activity, especially given his role as the National President of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP). Conditions restricting public appearances and media interactions, initially imposed due to the interim nature of previous bail for medical reasons, were relaxed. [Paras 51-54]

Political Motivation and Whistleblower Allegations – Need for Fair Trial - petitioner alleged political motivation behind his arrest, citing its timing and lack of evidence. However, the court refrained from conclusively commenting on these allegations, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial and the ongoing investigation. [Paras 42, 43, 44, 57]

Judicial Discretion in Granting Bail – Balance of Factors - court exercised judicial discretion in granting bail, balancing the seriousness of the charges, the need for a fair investigation, the personal liberty of the accused, and public interest. The decision reflects a careful consideration of the competing interests in criminal justice administration. [Paras 49, 50, 56, 57]

Enhancement of Maintenance Allowance – Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner sought enhancement of maintenance allowance previously set at Rs. 5,000 per month. Citing increased living costs and husband's income, petitioner argued for an increase to Rs 12,500 per month. Learned Magistrate enhanced maintenance to Rs 6,500 per month, which was challenged as insufficient. High Court observed the inadequacy of Rs 6,500 for living expenses, considering the husband's income and lack of substantial evidence against petitioner's claim. Maintenance enhanced to Rs 10,000 per month.

Income of Parties – Lack of Evidence – No conclusive evidence presented regarding the husband's income or liabilities. Absence of income or expenditure affidavit from parties, contrary to Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnish Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324. High Court emphasized the need for maintenance amount to be commensurate with the husband's income.

Effect of Criminal Proceedings on Maintenance – Previous criminal cases (Sections 498A and 406 IPC) against husband, resulting in acquittal, do not disentitle wife from receiving or enhancing maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. Observations in criminal cases not to affect maintenance decisions.

Final Decision – Enhancement of maintenance from Rs 6,500 to Rs 10,000 per month. Remaining portions of the lower court's order unchanged. Connected applications and any stay orders during the pendency of the revision vacated.

Election of Council Office Bearers – Procedural Irregularities Alleged – Petitioner, Dr. Kunal Saha, challenges the election process of the West Bengal Medical Council's President and Vice President, alleging procedural irregularities based on the Bengal Medical Act, 1914. Meeting and elections held on November 1, 2022, contested as being before the official Gazette notification date, claimed to be violative of Sections 11A and 11B of the Act. [Paras 1, 4-5, 26-28, 30-31, 33-35]

Locus Standi of OCI Card Holder – The petitioner, an OCI card holder, argued to have locus standi in challenging the Council's elections. The court examines Sections 7A and 7B of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and Section 4 of the Bengal Medical Act, 1914, to determine eligibility and rights of the petitioner in contesting the Council's election procedures. [Paras 8-9, 17-24]

Legal Interpretation and Retrospective Effect – Court interprets the term "notification" in Section 11A(1) of the 1914 Act, considering the actual and published dates of the notification. It finds no substantial illegality in the Council's first meeting held on the notification date (November 1, 2022) but prior to its publication in the Gazette on November 3, 2022. [Paras 27, 29-31, 35]

Impact of Technical Irregularities on Council’s Functioning – The court acknowledges the functioning of the newly elected Council for over a year with its office bearers and considers the potential disruptive impact of upholding the technical challenge at this stage. [Paras 35-36]

Conclusion and Dismissal of Petition – The court does not find any gross illegality in the election process of the West Bengal Medical Council. WPA No.14447 of 2023 dismissed, addressing primarily the issue of nomination and election of the President and Vice President. Other election aspects, not argued substantially by the petitioner, were not delved into. [Paras 37-39]

Disciplinary Proceedings in Banking Sector – Petitioner, a Scale-II officer in Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, challenges the disciplinary process including charge-sheet dated 7th June 2013, enquiry findings, and subsequent orders of punishment and appellate authority – Allegations of financial irregularities and misconduct as Branch Manager – Issues around the procedural aspects of the disciplinary process under bank service regulations. [Paras 1, 4, 7, 9, 22]

Procedural Legality and Jurisdictional Authority – Examination of the authority of the General Manager to issue the charge-sheet – Change in ‘Competent Authority’ definition under the amended Service Regulations, 2013 – Implications for the legitimacy of the charge-sheet and subsequent proceedings – Argument that procedural irregularities vitiated the proceedings. [Paras 7-9, 14-17]

Principles of Natural Justice and Disciplinary Proceedings – Discussion on adherence to principles of natural justice – Assessment of whether procedural irregularities led to prejudice or miscarriage of justice against the petitioner – Judicial review confined to decision-making process in disciplinary proceedings. [Paras 18, 20-21]

Admission of Guilt and Procedural Compliance – Evaluation of petitioner's admissions regarding deviations from banking practices and sanctioning loans against norms – Enquiry officer’s reasoned findings upheld by Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority – No substantial miscarriage of justice found. [Paras 22, 24]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed. No interference with the charge-sheet, enquiry proceedings, or orders of punishment and appellate authority. [Para 24]

Writ Petition – Pay Anomaly Correction – Petition for equalizing petitioner's pay with that of a junior colleague – Petitioner, a retired 'Process Server', sought parity in pay with respondent no. 4, who drew higher pay at retirement. [Para 1-4, 9]

Judicial Precedent – Reference to Similar Cases – Citing instances of pay correction in similar circumstances in the judiciary department – Previous High Court orders and government actions cited as precedents for pay anomaly correction. [Para 5-8, 15-16]

Legal Argument – Application of Rule 55(4) of West Bengal Service Rules – Argument for stepping up petitioner’s pay in line with junior’s pay based on Rule 55(4), highlighting cases of similar pay step-ups. [Para 10-11, 14-15]

Opposition by State – Differentiation in Circumstances – State’s contention that petitioner's circumstances were not identical to those in cited cases, suggesting benefit under the Modified Career Advance Scheme, 2001 instead. [Para 12]

Judicial Analysis – Review of Applicability of Rule 55(4) – Consideration of legal provisions and past judgments relevant to the case. [Para 13-16]

Direction for Representation – Opportunity for Grievance Redressal – Granting liberty to petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the learned District Judge, with instructions for the procedure and timeframe for addressing the grievance. [Para 17-18]

Orders – Disposal of Petition with Directions – Disposal of the writ petition with specific directions for reconsideration of petitioner’s pay anomaly and subsequent actions based on findings. [Para 18-19]

Challenge to Tribunal’s Order – Petition against Central Administrative Tribunal's order directing review DPC for promotion of respondent No.4 retrospectively – Petitioners claim their seniority affected due to Tribunal's decision without their participation in the original application – Tribunal’s order based on Supreme Court’s interpretation of equivalence in qualifications for promotion. [Para 1-2]

Seniority and Promotion Dispute – Dispute over promotion criteria from Assistant Surveyor of Works (ASW) to Surveyor of Works (SW) – Criteria set in Military Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 1985, and subsequent changes in 2005 – Respondent No.4’s promotion denied previously due to qualification criteria, now considered equivalent by Supreme Court. [Para 3-6]

Judicial History – Respondent No.4's initial application for seniority correction based on equivalence of degree in Civil Engineering with Institution of Surveyors (India) examination – Supreme Court ruling in favor of equivalence – Impact on respondent No.4's promotion and subsequent Tribunal applications. [Para 6-9]

Petitioners' Arguments and Tribunal's Decision – Petitioners' contention on delay and non-inclusion in Tribunal application – Tribunal ordered review DPC for respondent No.4, considering him fit and eligible for promotion – Challenge to Tribunal's decision on grounds of delay and procedural issues. [Para 10-11]

Respondent No.4's Position and Tribunal’s Rationale – Respondent No.4 justified in seeking promotion based on Supreme Court’s decision and equivalence in qualifications – Tribunal's order aimed at rectifying missed promotion opportunity for respondent No.4. [Para 11-13]

Court’s Analysis and Conclusion – High Court finds no merit in petitioners' arguments regarding delay and procedural lapses – Emphasizes the importance of implementing Tribunal's order in the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision on qualification equivalence – Petition dismissed, upholding Tribunal's direction for review DPC. [Para 14-17]

Applications Dismissed – Associated applications dismissed as infructuous following the main petition's dismissal. [CM APPLs. 15631/2023 & 17512/2023]

Civil Procedure – Reframing of Issues in Civil Suit – Trial Court’s deletion and reframing of issues challenged – Petitioner’s application for additional issues not fully considered – High Court analysis of necessity for additional issues proposed by Petitioner. [Para 1, 2, 4, 5, 14-15, 21]

Jurisdiction – Suit Maintainability under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land

Reforms Act – Trial Court and Coordinate Bench’s earlier decisions on maintainability upheld – Doctrine of res judicata applied – No new issue on jurisdiction to be considered. [Para 17, 17.1, 21(a)]

Power of Attorney – Validity and Cancellation – Issues regarding validity and authority of Power of Attorney and its cancellation covered under existing issues – No separate framing required. [Para 16, 16.1, 21(c, e)]

Possession and Transfer Rights – Claims of possession and transfer rights in land – Trial Court’s earlier order and its implications – No separate issue on possession and transfer rights required. [Para 18, 18.1-18.2, 21(d)]

Valuation and Court Fees – Question of undervaluation of suit and sufficiency of court fees – Issue already covered by existing framed issue – Trial Court to consider additional court fees if required at final stage. [Para 20, 20.1, 21(b)]

Bona Fide Purchasers – Validity of Sale Deed – Plea of defendants being bona fide purchasers not substantiated in pleadings – Issue of legal authority of defendant no.1 to execute sale deed and retain proceeds covered under existing issue. [Para 19, 19.1-19.3, 21(e)]

Directions for Expeditious Trial – Emphasis on speedy trial given the prolonged duration of the suit – Trial Court urged to conclude trial within nine months from a specified date. [Para 22]

Abuse of Process – Concerns over defendants’ conduct in proceedings – Trial Court advised to exercise jurisdiction against non-participating defendants to prevent abuse of legal process. [Para 26, 27]

Decision – Petition disposed with specific directions and observations – No additional issues required to be framed beyond those already considered by Trial Court. [Para 28]

Bail Application – Regular bail granted to Jagsir Singh @ Jagga in FIR No. 101 dated 21.08.2023 registered for offences under IPC Sections 379-B, 420, 383, 411, 120-B and Arms Act Sections 25, 27 at Police Station Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga. Reliance on co-accused Sikander Singh alias Sikanderi’s bail, the principle of parity applied. [Para 7]

Circumstances of Offence – Allegations involve using a woman as bait for extortion. Petitioner's connection to the crime questioned due to delayed victim statements. Investigation concluded and challan presented. [Paras 2-3]

Opposition by State – State's opposition to bail due to the petitioner’s involvement in multiple other cases, including under Sections 384 and 307 of the IPC. [Para 4]

Legal Precedents – Reference to 'Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another', 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal) 831, and 'Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of UP (SC)', (2012) 2 SCC 382, emphasizing that multiple cases against an individual are not grounds to deny bail. [Paras 5, 7]

Decision – Petitioner granted bail considering the duration of incarceration and parity with co-accused. Bail terms to be satisfied as per the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. [Para 7]

Medical Unfitness in Recruitment - Hypertension and Varicose Vein - Petitioner declared medically unfit for the post of Constable (Animal Transport) in ITBP due to 'varicose vein both legs' and 'high blood pressure', later revised to 'hypertension with mild mitral regurgitation'. Petitioner contends wrongful rejection based on hypertension, a condition reportedly curable with drug therapy. [Paras 1-3]

Court’s Directive for Re-examination - High Court orders re-examination of petitioner by PGIMER's Medical Board. Subsequent medical reports confirm Stage-I Hypertension, manageable with drug therapy, and absence of varicose veins. [Paras 4-5]

Expert Medical Opinion Upheld - High Court relies on consistent medical opinions from various boards, affirming petitioner's hypertension. It emphasizes the inability of the judicial system to substitute the expert medical opinions with its judgment. [Paras 6-7]

Precedent and Finality of Medical Board’s Opinion - Citing a similar case (LPA No.871 of 2022 titled ‘Sumit Vs. Union of India’), the court underscores the finality of the medical board's opinion in recruitment processes, dismissing any further judicial intervention in the matter. [Para 7]

Decision - Petition challenging medical unfitness in the recruitment process dismissed, upholding the opinions of the medical experts. [Para 8]