Service Law – Wrongful Dismissal – Grant of Back Wages – “No Work No Pay” – Petitioner, a PwD employee, dismissed from service solely on basis of criminal conviction despite stay of conviction by appellate court – Dismissal order later set aside and matter remanded for fresh decision – Competent authority granted all service benefits including salary up to extended age of retirement (60 years) – Successor authority later reviewed and denied salary for intervening period on principle of “no work no pay” – Held: Principle of “no work no pay” not applicable where employee was willing to work but was illegally prevented by employer – Department being at fault, petitioner entitled to full pay and allowances [Paras 18–21, 25].

Administrative Law – Review by Successor-in-Office – Illegality – Earlier order granting service benefits reviewed by successor authority without notice or hearing – Held: Successor in office has no jurisdiction to review or recall an order passed by predecessor unless statute so permits – Such review violates principles of natural justice and is impermissible in law [Paras 18, 22].

Criminal Law Impact on Service – Stay of Conviction – Effect – Conviction and sentence stayed by appellate court prior to dismissal – Subsequent release on probation under Sections 468 and 471 IPC – Protection under Section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Held: Dismissal founded on conviction which stood stayed was illegal and unsustainable [Paras 3–5, 19].

Persons with Disabilities – Extension of Retirement Age – Service Benefits – Petitioner appointed against handicapped quota – Retirement age extended to 60 years pursuant to Supreme Court decision and Government instructions – Petitioner held entitled to continuation in service till 31.05.2015 with all consequential benefits [Paras 6, 16–18].

Interest on Delayed Retiral Benefits – Entitlement – Retiral dues including gratuity, pension and leave encashment released after inordinate delay of several years – Held: In absence of justification for delay, petitioner entitled to interest as compensation for wrongful retention of money by State – Interest awarded @ 7% per annum [Paras 23–25].

Principles of Natural Justice – Violation – Review order passed without issuing show cause notice or affording opportunity of hearing – Held: Order vitiated on account of violation of audi alteram partem [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 21.11.2019 set aside – Petitioner held entitled to pay and allowances for period from 01.06.2014 to 31.05.2015 with interest @ 7% per annum – Further entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on delayed payment of pensionary benefits w.e.f. 01.09.2015 till actual payment – Respondents directed to compute and release amounts within three months [Para 25].

Criminal Law – Double Jeopardy – Section 300 Cr.P.C. – Article 20(2) of Constitution – Petitioner sought quashing of trial at Karera, Madhya Pradesh on ground that he had already been tried and acquitted in a connected case by courts in Rajasthan – Held: Protection against double jeopardy applies only when second prosecution is for the same offence and by a court of competent jurisdiction – Distinct FIRs registered in different States constitute separate causes of action – Bar under Section 300 Cr.P.C. not attracted [Paras 13, 18, 28–30].

Antiquities and Art Treasures Act – Theft and Trafficking of Idols – Multiple FIRs – Large-scale gang involved in stealing and exporting antiquities from different States – Each FIR relating to recovery of distinct stolen property gives rise to independent prosecution – Acquittal in one case does not immunize accused from prosecution in other cases involving separate offences and recoveries [Paras 21–28].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Sections 177–189 Cr.P.C. – Competency of Court – Only court within whose territorial jurisdiction offence was committed is competent to try the case – Proceedings before Jaipur Courts could not bar prosecution for offence committed within jurisdiction of Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri – Doctrine of autrefois acquit not applicable [Paras 18, 28].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Inherent Powers – Scope – Power to quash criminal proceedings to be exercised sparingly – No abuse of process or failure of justice demonstrated – Trial court and revisional court orders rejecting plea of double jeopardy found legal and proper – High Court declined interference [Paras 16, 30].

Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt – Effect – Acquittal by Rajasthan High Court was on benefit of doubt and not a clean acquittal on merits – Even otherwise, acquittal related to different FIRs and offences – Does not create statutory bar to continuation of trial in Madhya Pradesh [Paras 27–28].

Precedent – “Same Offence” Test – Supreme Court reiterated that for Article 20(2) to apply, offences must be identical in ingredients – Similarity of facts not sufficient – Reliance placed on State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte – Distinct offences cannot attract constitutional bar [Para 29].

Direction – Speedy Trial – Trial Court directed to conduct proceedings expeditiously, preferably on day-to-day basis – Clarified that no opinion expressed on merits of case [Paras 31–32].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Orders of Trial Court and Revisional Court affirmed – Plea of double jeopardy rejected – Criminal trial to proceed in accordance with law.

Family Pension – Divorced Daughter – Eligibility – Dependency – Original applicant sought family pension as divorced daughter of deceased railway employee – Tribunal directed grant of family pension – Union of India challenged the order – Held, object of family pension is to provide financial support to dependent family members – Dependency is a question of fact to be decided on evidence [Paras 20–22].

Family Pension – Divorce Proceedings – DoP&T O.M. dated 19.07.2017 – Interpretation – Clause 6 of O.M. provides entitlement where divorce proceedings were initiated during lifetime of pensioner though decree passed after death – Held, requirement is filing of divorce proceedings during lifetime and not necessarily conclusion of divorce – Narrow interpretation by authorities deprecated [Paras 25–27].

Family Pension – Dependency on Pensioner – Deserted Daughter – Evidence – Materials showed respondent was deserted by husband since 1995–96 and was residing at paternal home – Divorce suit by husband filed during lifetime of pensioner – Subsequent divorce decree recorded desertion during pensioner’s lifetime – Held, respondent established dependency on her father at the time of his death [Paras 22–24, 28].

Service Law – Administrative Orders – Beneficial Interpretation – DoP&T O.M. dated 19.07.2017 is a beneficial scheme – Authorities must interpret it purposively and not in a restrictive manner – Tribunal rightly corrected erroneous and narrow interpretation adopted by department [Paras 26–28].

Writ Jurisdiction – Interference with Tribunal Orders – Scope – High Court does not act as appellate authority over CAT – Unless order suffers from perversity or patent illegality, interference not warranted – Tribunal’s view found plausible and based on evidence [Paras 30–31].

Distinguishing Precedent – Jayanti Chatterjee Case – Facts distinguished – In earlier case claimant failed to prove dependency or existence of divorce proceedings during lifetime of pensioner – Present case materially different – Reliance on said precedent held misplaced [Paras 29].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Order dated 09.10.2024 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench upheld – Direction to grant family pension to respondent affirmed – No order as to costs.

Eviction Suit – Licence vs. Lease – Agreements styled as Leave and Licence – Trial Court dismissed suits holding no cause of action on ground that defendants had no exclusive possession – Held: Absence of exclusive possession is an essential ingredient of licence and not proof of plaintiff’s possession – Trial Court’s reasoning perverse and contrary to settled principles – Impugned judgments set aside [Paras 36–40].

First Appeal – Powers of Appellate Court – Order XLI Rules 24 and 33 CPC – Suits dismissed ex parte on erroneous preliminary reasoning – Evidence on record sufficient – Remand would revive lost defence and prolong litigation – Held: First appellate court, being last court of facts, justified in deciding suits on merits without remand [Paras 41–47].

Order XXII Rule 10 CPC – Transferee pendente lite – Locus Standi – Purchaser of suit property in liquidation sale substituted as appellant – Validity of title not set aside by any competent forum – Article 137 Limitation Act inapplicable – Right to prosecute appeal is continuous – Held: Substituted appellant has locus standi to continue and prosecute appeals [Paras 48–54].

Jurisdiction – City Civil Court vs. Presidency Small Cause Court – Section 19(d), Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 – Small Cause Court barred from entertaining regular suits for recovery of immovable property – Proceedings under Sections 41–43 of 1882 Act are summary and optional – Held: Regular eviction suits against licensees maintainable before City Civil Court – Jurisdictional objection rejected [Paras 55–75].

Leave and Licence – Determination of Jural Relationship – Clauses denying tenancy rights – No exclusive possession – Licensor’s right of entry and control retained – Common amenities and sub-metered electricity – Clause expressly excluding tenancy decisive – Held: Relationship between parties is licensor-licensee and not landlord-tenant [Paras 76–94].

Rent Control Proceedings – Effect – Orders under Sections 27 and 36 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Held: Rent Controller is not a civil court – Such orders are not conclusive on status of parties – Civil court’s determination prevails [Para 95].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments and decrees of dismissal set aside – Decrees of eviction granted in favour of the appellant in both suits – Respondents granted 90 days’ time to hand over vacant and peaceful possession – No order as to costs – Interim orders vacated.

Negotiable Instruments – Cheque Dishonour – Appeal against Acquittal – Admitted Signature – Defence Unproved – Accused issued cheque for Rs.2,00,000 allegedly towards friendly loan – Cheque dishonoured for 'insufficient funds' – Accused admitted signature but claimed cheque was misused – Claimed cheque given to third party (Subramaniam), but failed to examine him as witness – Trial Court acquitted accused holding loan not proved and transaction improbable – Appellate Court held such reasoning erroneous as cheque and signature were admitted and presumption under Section 139 NI Act not rebutted – However, respondent died during pendency of appeal – Appeal rendered infructuous and dismissed [Paras 1–3, 5].

Criminal Procedure – Death of Accused – Effect on Appeal – During pendency of appeal against acquittal, police confirmed death of accused – Death Certificate produced and verified through official report – Held: No further adjudication possible – Appeal dismissed as abated [Para 3].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – In view of death of accused during pendency of appeal, no further adjudication warranted – Criminal Appeal abated.

Banking Law – Unauthorized Appropriation by Bank – Petitioner Axis Bank, despite specific orders dated 07.07.2012 and 03.06.2013 by Magistrate to hold auction proceeds in FDR till trial conclusion, appropriated Rs. 8.20 crore based on DRT's temporary direction dated 20.04.2018 – Held: Bank’s action is in gross violation of Trial Court’s binding orders and amounts to disobedience of judicial directions [Paras 1, 16–20, 23] –

Judicial Authority – Supremacy of Trial Court Directions – Orders of Trial Court, upheld by Rajasthan High Court and not interfered with by the Supreme Court (SLP withdrawn), had attained finality – DRT's order permitting temporary appropriation passed in ignorance of these binding decisions – Held: DRT order does not override Trial Court’s order – Any action contrary is non-est [Paras 12–14, 22–23] –

Rule of Law – No One Above the Law – High Court reiterates foundational constitutional principle that all authorities including banks are bound by court orders – Disobedience undermines rule of law and invites judicial censure – Court warns of consequences for future violations while taking lenient view in current case [Paras 21, 23–24] –

Interim Orders – DRT Permitting Temporary Appropriation – DRT permitted Axis Bank to appropriate auction proceeds during pendency of OA with condition to reimburse if claim fails – DRT not informed of prior criminal court directions restraining withdrawal – Held: Non-disclosure by Bank fatal – DRT order passed in ignorance cannot justify bank’s action [Paras 16–18, 22] –

Criminal Procedure – Section 457 CrPC – Magistrate correctly exercised powers to auction perishable goods (seized grains) and safeguard proceeds in FDR – Bank’s unilateral withdrawal defeated the purpose of judicial custody of property – Court upholds Magistrate’s direction to refund and initiate action against bank officials if not complied [Paras 11, 19–20] –

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order of Trial Court directing Axis Bank to redeposit appropriated amount with interest upheld – Stay and pending applications disposed [Para 25–26].

Criminal Law – Rape/POCSO – Appreciation of Evidence – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Grandfather accused of raping minor granddaughter – FIR lodged after 21 days delay – Victim claimed she was threatened but did not disclose this in Section 164 statement – Incident allegedly occurred in daylight in a populated area, yet no alarm raised – Held: While conviction can be based on sole testimony, it must be of sterling quality – Here, the conduct of the victim (silence for 19 days, delay in FIR) was unnatural and improbable – Testimony failed to inspire confidence – Acquitted.[Paras 22, 28, 29, 35].

Criminal Law – Delay in FIR – Sexual Offences – 21 days delay in lodging FIR – Explanation of threat not consistent across statements – Held: While delay is not always fatal in rape cases, unexplained delay coupled with lack of immediate complaint to parents or friends creates serious doubt on the prosecution case – [Paras 32, 34].

Criminal Law – Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Victim alleged multiple incidents of rape – Medical examination showed no external or internal injuries – Held: Medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution story, further weakening the case – [Para 30].

Juvenile Justice – Age Determination – Section 94 JJ Act – Discrepancies in birth date between oral testimony (11.11.2006) and school records (28.02.2006/29.02.2006) – School record entries found manipulated after case registration – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim conclusively as less than 18 years due to manipulated and contradictory documents – [Paras 20, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.

Constitution of India – High Court Administration – Territorial Allocation of Business – Rule 3A Appellate Side Rules – Dispute arose in Kolhapur; Appeal decided in Pune; Writ filed in Mumbai – Rule 3A mandates matters "arising in" Kolhapur district "shall" be heard at Kolhapur Circuit Bench – Held: Rule 3A is mandatory – The Chief Justice is the Master of the Roster – Litigants cannot choose the Bench – Petition must be heard at Kolhapur – [Paras 14, 15, 24].

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Situs of Dispute – Petitioner argued doctrine of merger (Appellate order at Pune) gave jurisdiction to Mumbai/Pune – Held: For internal allocation of work within the same High Court, the situs of the original authority/cause of action (Kolhapur) determines the Bench – Doctrine of merger does not override administrative rules of allocation – [Paras 18, 19, 20].

Judicial Discipline – Master of Roster – Held: Judges sitting at Principal Seat cannot assume jurisdiction over matters assigned to Circuit Benches by the Chief Justice via Rules/Roster – [Para 23].

Decision: Petition to be transmitted to the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur for disposal.

Family Law – 125 CrPC - Maintenance – Assessment of Income – Reliance on ITR – Petitioner-husband claimed low income but his ITR for AY 2018-19 showed annual income of Rs. 5,18,268/- (approx. Rs. 43,189/- pm) – Petitioner claimed subsequent ITRs showed reduced income – Held: Family Court rightly relied on the ITR of AY 2018-19 as the most reliable indicator, rejecting subsequent lower ITRs and undated salary certificates as unreliable attempts to conceal income – [Paras 8, 9, 11].

Family Law – Maintenance – Quantum and Apportionment – Annurita Vohra Formula – Family Court awarded Rs. 25,000/- pm to wife out of husband's assessed income of Rs. 43,189/- pm – Held: Awarding more than half of the husband's income is excessive – Applying the principle of apportionment (2 shares for husband, 1 for wife), the wife is entitled to roughly 1/3rd of net income – Considering inflation and need for dignified living, maintenance modified to Rs. 17,000/- per month – [Paras 12, 13].

Criminal Procedure – Section 125 vs. Interim Order – Petitioner argued final maintenance cannot exceed interim maintenance without proof of changed circumstances under Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Held: Final determination under Section 125 is independent of the interim order and is based on evidence led during trial – It is not a modification under Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Family Court can enhance or reduce amount in final judgment based on evidence – [Para 10].

Decision: Petition disposed of. Impugned judgment modified; maintenance reduced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 17,000/- per month.