Civil Law – Declaration of Title and Possession – Proof of Will – Plaintiff claimed title on basis of registered Will dated 28.03.1990 allegedly executed by testatrix Anasuyamma – Evidence of attesting witnesses contained serious inconsistencies regarding execution, presence of witnesses and circumstances of registration – Testatrix in earlier litigation failed to mention such Will though examined as witness – Held: Registered Will surrounded by several suspicious circumstances and not proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63 of the Succession Act – Plaintiff failed to establish title to the suit property [Paras 21–24, 33].

Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Duty of Propounder – Court reiterated that when suspicious circumstances surround execution of a Will, the burden lies heavily on the propounder to remove such suspicions before the document can be accepted as genuine – Mere registration of a Will does not dispel suspicious circumstances – Discrepancies in testimonies of attesting witnesses and conduct of the testatrix created serious doubt regarding genuineness of the Will relied upon by the plaintiff [Paras 17, 21, 31–33].

Will – Subsequent Testament – Defendants relied upon later unregistered Will dated 10.08.1997 executed shortly before death of testatrix – All attesting witnesses examined and their evidence remained unshaken in cross-examination – Held: Unregistered Will proved in accordance with law and being the last testament of the testatrix prevails over earlier disputed Will [Paras 34–38].

Civil Law – Declaration Suit – Plaintiff must succeed on strength of own title – Plaintiff, being not a natural heir, failed to prove the Will forming basis of title – Defendants proved later Will and were also Class-II heirs under the Succession Act – Held: Plaintiff not entitled to declaration of title or recovery of possession – Trial Court erred in partly decreeing the suit [Paras 15, 39–40].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 27.03.2006 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Guntur set aside – Suit in O.S.No.03 of 1998 dismissed – Parties directed to bear their own costs.

Tenancy Law – Will by Tenant – Bequeathal of Tenancy Rights – Section 45, H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act – Panchi was recorded as a non-occupancy tenant under Ishru, a widow, as per Jamabandi for 1977-78 – Panchi executed a Will dated 27.11.1984 in favour of the defendant – Defendant contended that Panchi had become the owner upon commencement of the Act – Held: Section 104(8) of the Act expressly excludes operation of Sections 104(1) to (6) in the case of a tenancy under a widow during her lifetime – Panchi could not have acquired proprietary rights during the lifetime of Ishru – Tenancy rights cannot be bequeathed by way of a Will – Section 45 of the Act provides the exclusive rule of succession to tenancy rights – Will held void ab initio [Paras 28-36].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Tenancy Dispute Between Successors of Tenant – Section 58 Bar – Sections 112 and 115, H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act – Bar under Section 58 applies only where the status of landlord and tenant is not disputed and not to cases where parties are claiming to be successors of the tenant – Dispute between two persons each claiming to be successor of a tenant does not fall within the cognizance of Revenue Courts – Bar of Civil Court jurisdiction under Sections 112 and 115 applies only when validity of orders passed under Chapter X is called in question, and not where no such order is involved – Civil Court jurisdiction held not barred [Paras 21-27, 37-40].

Additional Evidence – Application Dismissed – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Defendant sought to lead additional evidence by producing copy of Pariwar register to prove date of death of Ishru – No pleading in the written statement that Ishru had died and Panchi had consequently become owner – Additional evidence cannot be allowed to prove a plea never taken in pleadings – Further, copy of Pariwar register is not admissible to prove date of birth or death; only entries in the Register of Births and Deaths can be proved – Application dismissed [Paras 15-20].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – All three substantial questions of law answered against the appellants – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court upheld.

Preventive Detention – Public Safety Act – Law and Order vis-à-vis Public Order – Bovine Smuggling – Petitioner detained under Section 8(1)(a) of the J&K Public Safety Act by order dated 11.07.2025 on the basis of two FIRs and three unverified Daily Diary Entries alleging habitual bovine smuggling – One FIR already disposed of and the other (FIR No. 0049/2025 dated 03.05.2025) pending investigation – Petitioner not directly involved in the pending FIR as admitted by the Detaining Authority – Held: Alleged activities of bovine smuggling constitute infractions of law and order and do not rise to the level of acts prejudicial to public order as defined under Section 8(3) of the Act – Detention order quashed [Paras 10-19].

Public Order – Distinction from Law and Order – Acts affecting individuals or isolated criminal conduct cannot be equated with disturbance of public order – Public order is the even tempo of life of the community – Only where the disturbance subverts the community at large does it amount to a public order problem – Mere infraction of law leads to disorder but not necessarily public disorder [Paras 13-16].

Preventive Detention – Proximity – Live Link – Detention order dated 11.07.2025 passed about two months after the last alleged incident of 03.05.2025 – Three Daily Diary Entries unverified and uncorroborated – No explanation by Detaining Authority for the delay – Undue and unreasonable gap between alleged activities and passing of detention order snaps the live link – Detaining Authority also failed to address why normal criminal law was inadequate and did not challenge the bail granted to the petitioner – Non-application of mind established [Paras 19-24].

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction – Misuse of Power – Preventive detention is an exception to the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 – Detention orders must be passed with great care and caution, only in cases of genuine and inevitable necessity – Provisions of Article 22(5) require proper communication of grounds, opportunity to make representation and application of mind – Impugned order is the outcome of non-application of mind and misuse of powers [Paras 25-27].

Decision: Petition allowed – Detention order No. 08-PSA-2025 dated 11.07.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Udhampur, quashed – Petitioner directed to be released forthwith from preventive detention.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for strangulating his wife with a towel and assaulting her with a kitchen cutting tool on 20.11.2017 – Trial Court sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- – Prosecution sought to establish guilt through circumstances of motive, recovery of MOs 1 and 3, conduct after incident and medical evidence – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 15-28].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Non-Examination of Key Witness – Son of deceased and accused (Kavin Prasad) was the person who first informed PW4 about the incident and was likely the only person who witnessed or saw the accused at the scene – Prosecution failed to examine Kavin Prasad either during investigation or before the Court – Investigation Officer neither recorded his statement nor included him in the list of witnesses – In the absence of any witness to establish the last seen theory, no material existed to link the accused to the incident – Serious lapse on the part of the Investigation Officer condemned – Motive and strained relationship alone cannot lead to a presumption of guilt [Paras 21-26].

Hostile Witnesses – Evidence of No Value – PW4, brother of the accused, and PW5, a neighbour, both turned hostile – Nothing emerged from their evidence to assist the prosecution's case [Paras 18-19].

Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution must prove each circumstance forming a chain so as to completely exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused – When chain of circumstances is snapped and two views are possible, the accused is entitled to the view favourable to him – Strong suspicion cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 24-27].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges and directed to be set at liberty.

Constitutional Law – Article 371-A – Legislative Competence of State of Nagaland – Petroleum and Natural Gas – Article 131 Jurisdiction – PIL Maintainability – The State of Nagaland enacted the Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulations, 2012 and Rules, 2012 pursuant to a resolution dated 26.07.2010 of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly, claiming power under Article 371-A(1)(a)(iv) which provides that no Act of Parliament in respect of ownership and transfer of land and its resources shall apply to the State of Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly so decides – Union of India contested the legislative competence of the Nagaland Legislature, contending that regulation and development of oilfields and mineral oil is exclusively reserved for Parliament under Entry 53 of List-I – Core question whether Article 371-A confers affirmative legislative competence upon the State or is merely a disabling provision preventing application of Union laws – Held: The dispute between the Union of India and the State of Nagaland on the question of legislative competence falls squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131(a) of the Constitution – High Court declines to adjudicate the issue [Paras 35-49].

PIL – Maintainability – Article 226 – Limits of PIL Jurisdiction – PIL under Article 226 is maintainable where the petitioner is a public-spirited person raising issues of fundamental rights violations of poor, disadvantaged, or marginalised sections, or environmental and human rights issues – The issue raised in the present PIL relates to legislative competence of the State and does not involve curtailment or deprivation of any fundamental right of a citizen – Union of India is not disabled from approaching an appropriate forum to challenge the validity of the 2012 Regulations and Rules – Ordinarily, High Courts should not entertain PILs questioning the constitutionality or validity of statutes or statutory rules – PIL closed in exercise of self-restraint [Paras 43-50].

Article 131 – Exclusive Jurisdiction of Supreme Court – The real issue of whether the Nagaland Legislature had legislative competence to enact the 2012 Regulations and Rules, as contested by the Union of India, is a dispute between the Union and the State of Nagaland which falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Clause (a) of Article 131 – The presence of respondent No. 7, a private company, as a party does not alter this conclusion since respondent No. 7 has no locus to contest the question of legislative competence between the Union and the State [Paras 35-42].

Decision: PIL closed – Liberty granted to the Union of India to assail the Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulations, 2012, the Rules, 2012, and the tender/Expression of Interest process in an appropriate manner – No order as to costs.

Service Law – Bank Employee – Disciplinary Proceedings – Dismissal Without Notice – Misappropriation – Petitioner, a Cash-cum-Accounts Clerk with 19 years of unblemished service, suspended on allegations of activating 19 dormant pension accounts in the Finacle system without KYC documents and effecting cash payments of Rs.38.67 lakhs in gross violation of bank norms – Enquiry Officer found Charge I(i) partially proved, Charge I(ii) proved and Charge III not proved – Disciplinary Authority disagreed and held all charges fully proved – Punishment of dismissal without notice imposed – Statutory appeal rejected – Held: Decision of DA based on no evidence – DA merely paraphrased enquiry report without independent analysis – Order of DA and AA set aside – Matter remanded to DA for fresh decision within four weeks [Paras 1–53].

"Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings – Scope – Decision Based on No Evidence Amenable to Review"

Judicial Review – Disciplinary Authority – No Evidence – Scope of Writ Court – Writ court does not sit in appeal over findings of disciplinary authority or re-evaluate evidence – However, where the impugned finding is alleged to be based on no evidence, the writ court is not precluded from examining whether any material on record existed to sustain such finding – A finding unsupported by any evidence is liable to be interfered with in exercise of judicial review – Suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof – Principles of natural justice require that findings in disciplinary proceedings must be founded on some evidence [Paras 20–22].

"Divergence Between Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority – DA Cannot Substitute Conclusions on Conjectures"

Disciplinary Authority – Disagreement With Enquiry Officer – Evidence – EO observed no oral, documentary or circumstantial evidence to substantiate Charge I(i) – Management failed to produce Branch Head or designated officer to establish CSE acted without instructions – EO noted documents on basis of which data was entered not available in branch records – EO also relied on handwriting expert's opinion that CSE was not involved in alleged forgery – DA however held all charges proved merely by paraphrasing portions of EO's report and treating absence of documentary evidence as corroborative of unauthorized conduct – Held: DA conducted no independent discussion of evidence – If verification in SOL alone was sufficient to establish charges, there was no necessity to hold departmental enquiry at all – DA's conclusion rests on conjectures and assumptions and cannot be sustained [Paras 36–42].

"Activation of Dormant Account – Not a Unilateral Act – Entire Responsibility Cannot Be Fastened on Single Employee"

Bank Operations – Dormant Account Activation – Shared Responsibility – Activation of dormant account involves multiple employees including authentication of LTI by an officer, entry of data by cash-paying employee and cancellation of LTI by another officer – Data entered under petitioner's User ID proved but no documents traced on basis of which petitioner entered data – Not proved who authenticated or cancelled LTIs of pensioners – No disciplinary proceedings initiated against any other staff member – Held: It is wholly improbable that entire process was carried out solely by petitioner and that he alone misappropriated the entire amount [Paras 43–44].

"Proportionality – Dismissal Disproportionate Where Misappropriation Not Proved"

Punishment – Proportionality – Principle of Proportionality – Acts at best proved against petitioner are entering data for activating accounts without dishonest intention, failure to record denominations on reverse of certain withdrawal slips and overlooking improper authentication of LTIs – Misappropriation not proved satisfactorily as death or change of address of pensioners also not established – Held: These acts do not warrant imposition of extreme penalty of dismissal – Punishment shocks conscience of court and is outrageously disproportionate to the nature of charges as proved [Paras 47–48].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Order of Disciplinary Authority set aside – Order of Appellate Authority quashed – Matter remanded to Disciplinary Authority from stage of enquiry report and written submission of petitioner – DA directed to reconsider the matter without being influenced by earlier decision and pass fresh order within four weeks – No order as to costs – Prayer for stay of judgment rejected.

Civil Law – Substitution of Legal Representatives – Order 22 Rule 3 CPC – Will Under Adjudication – Plaintiff Smt. Preeto Devi filed a suit for vacant possession against her son Balwinder Singh – During pendency of the suit, plaintiff expired on 22.10.2024 – Application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC seeking substitution of Babhishan Singh, his wife Urmila Devi and two grandsons on the basis of a Will dated 05.03.2020 – Validity of the said Will already under challenge by the defendant before the same court in separate proceedings – Trial Court partly allowed the application directing substitution of Babhishan Singh as legal representative but rejected substitution of Urmila Devi, Udey Pathania and Nahar Pathania – Held: All sons of the deceased are necessary and proper parties and are required to be arrayed in the proceedings – Validity of the Will cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC – No infirmity in the order of the Trial Court – Petition dismissed [Paras 11-15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order of the learned Civil Judge, Indora, dated 19.09.2025 upheld.

Criminal Procedure – Proclaimed Person vs. Proclaimed Offender – Section 82(4) CrPC – NDPS Offences – Petitioner granted bail in NDPS case, failed to appear on one date due to miscommunication, bail cancelled, non-bailable warrants issued, proclamation effected on 13.02.2025 and petitioner declared proclaimed offender on 17.03.2025 – Held: Declaration as proclaimed offender under Section 82(4) CrPC is permissible only in respect of offences specified therein, which are exclusively certain provisions of the IPC – Offences under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act do not find mention in Section 82(4) CrPC – Petitioner could only have been declared a proclaimed person under Section 82(1) CrPC and not a proclaimed offender – Impugned order set aside to that extent [Paras 10-12].

Proclaimed Person and Proclaimed Offender – Distinction – There is a stark distinction between a proclaimed person under Section 82(1) CrPC and a proclaimed offender under Section 82(4) CrPC – All persons absconding or concealing themselves to evade arrest can be proclaimed persons, but only those accused of specified IPC offences can be declared proclaimed offenders – The difference in punishment under Section 174-A IPC reflects this distinction: up to three years for a proclaimed person and up to seven years for a proclaimed offender – Sections 83 to 86 CrPC dealing with attachment of property apply to proclaimed persons and do not deal with proclaimed offenders [Para 11].

Proclamation – Mandatory Requirements – Section 82(1) CrPC – Proclamation must specify a date and place for appearance of the accused and such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of publication – In the present case, proclamation effected on 13.02.2025 and case merely adjourned to 17.03.2025 for recording statement of serving official – Mandatory requirement of fixing date of appearance beyond 30 clear days from date of publication not complied with – Adjournment cannot cure the inherent defect in proclamation proceedings – Fresh proclamation required to be issued in accordance with law – Proclamation proceedings vitiated [Paras 13-18].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 17.03.2025 set aside to the extent of declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender – Petitioner directed to surrender before Trial Court/Duty Magistrate within two weeks subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs to Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh – Petitioner to furnish fresh bail and surety bonds and undertaking to appear regularly – Order to be treated as vacated if petitioner fails to appear within stipulated period [Paras 20-22].

Service Law – Removal from Service – Departmental Proceedings – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Honourable Acquittal versus Benefit of Doubt – Petitioner working as Assistant Sub Inspector removed from service vide order dated 07.08.2012 after departmental enquiry finding charges proved based on evidence of witnesses – Appellate authority rejected appeal vide order dated 20.06.2013 – Criminal case registered for offences under Sections 324, 326, 302, 201, 34 IPC wherein petitioner acquitted vide judgment dated 31.10.2017 – Review petition rejected vide Government Order dated 05.07.2023 – Tribunal re-appreciated evidence and dismissed original application – Petitioner contended acquittal was honourable acquittal not merely benefit of doubt – Relied on Ramlal vs State of Rajasthan – Held: Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings stand on different footing – Mere acquittal by Criminal Court does not confer right to claim reinstatement – Only if charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances identical or similar in both proceedings, matter requires different dimension – Acquittal merely on benefit of doubt as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt cannot be equated with departmental proceedings to give benefit of acquittal – Proof required in criminal trial more onerous than departmental proceedings which requires preponderance of probabilities – Sessions Court acquitted petitioner as circumstantial evidence not proved beyond reasonable doubt without break in chain of circumstances – Acquittal not honourable acquittal – Ramlal and GM Tank distinguished on facts – No interference warranted [Paras 1-18].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Scope and Ambit – High Court Powers – Petitioner invoked supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 challenging Tribunal order – Court examined scope of Article 227 – Held: Article 227 deals with power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals by High Court – Object is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of entire machinery of justice – Power of interference to be kept to minimum to ensure wheel of justice does not halt and fountain of justice remains pure – High Court cannot exercise power like bull in china shop to correct all errors of judgment of court or tribunal acting within limits of jurisdiction – Correctional jurisdiction exercisable in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice – High Court cannot sit in appeal over findings recorded by lower court or tribunal – Supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors – No interference under Article 227 unless High Court finds manifest error, palpably perverse or patently unreasonable reasoning, decision in direct conflict with settled principles of law, gross and manifest failure of justice or basic principles of natural justice flouted [Paras 9-15].

Evidence – Departmental Enquiry – Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probabilities versus Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Enquiry Officer conducted detailed enquiry and based on evidence of witnesses found charges against petitioner proved – Sessions Court noted investigation not foolproof contributing to acquittal – Prosecution failed to prove charges due to several failures including non-examination of witness Ajithan examined as PW6 in oral enquiry who proved petitioner was resident of Quarters No.6 – Finger print expert recovered only finger print of second accused from scene – No direct evidence – Scientific evidence not supporting blood, teeth, gum belonged to deceased – Held: Settled legal position that in disciplinary proceedings preponderance of probabilities adequate as against rigorous standard of beyond reasonable doubt required in criminal proceedings – Protection of Rule 10 under KPDIP&A Rules available to accused only when matter sub judice – Criminal case charged before Sessions Court much after disciplinary proceedings finalized – Petitioner cannot get benefit of Rule 10 – Dereliction of duty and misconduct proved in PR Minutes – Petitioner availed all opportunities to defend in disciplinary proceedings, appeal and review petitions [Paras 5-8, 10-12].

Precedent – Distinguishing Cases – Ramlal and GM Tank – Petitioner relied on Ramlal vs State of Rajasthan holding where charge stood disproved by prosecution evidence and charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances identical, disciplinary proceedings orders cannot stand – Also relied on GM Tank vs State of Gujarat holding where departmental and criminal proceedings based on identical similar set of facts and honourable acquittal, dismissal order liable to be set aside – Court examined applicability – Held: In Ramlal, delinquent altered date of birth in mark list to project majority at recruitment – Initially punished, acquittal in appeal – Charges disproved not merely not proved – In GM Tank, departmental and criminal proceedings based on identical set of facts relating to disproportionate income accumulation – Same witnesses examined in both – Honourable acquittal after regular trial on hot contest – Present case factually different – Acquittal on benefit of doubt as circumstantial evidence not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Not honourable acquittal – Charges in departmental proceedings related to dereliction of duty and misconduct, not criminal case per se – Witness examined in departmental enquiry not arrayed in criminal case – Facts and circumstances different – Precedents not applicable [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Original petition dismissed – Tribunal order dated 28.11.2025 in OA No.2162 of 2023 upheld – No ground to hold Tribunal order perverse or patently illegal warranting interference in supervisory jurisdiction – Acquittal in criminal case not honourable acquittal but benefit of doubt – Departmental and criminal proceedings on different footing – Charges, evidence and circumstances not identical – Standard of proof different – Preponderance of probabilities satisfied in departmental proceedings.