Service Law – Medical Officers – Higher Studies – Sponsored DNB (Post MBBS) – Refusal of NOC – Discrimination – Article 14 – In-service Medical Officer of OMHS cadre denied NOC solely on ground of opting for Sponsored DNB – State policy dated 02.09.2022 distinguishing between Sponsored and Non-Sponsored DNB found arbitrary – No intelligible differentia established – Held: Denial of NOC violative of equality clause under Article 14 [Paras 19–24, 32–33, 39].

Education Law – Post Graduate Medical Admission – DNB (Post MBBS) – Sponsored Category – NBEMS Regulations – No distinction under NMC or NBEMS between Sponsored and Non-Sponsored DNB – State cannot create artificial classification inconsistent with central regulatory framework – Differential treatment of similarly situated in-service doctors impermissible [Paras 20–22, 31–33].

Service Rules – Study Leave – Odisha Service Code – Rule 179 – Applicability to Medical Officers – Rule 179 binding on State Government – State cannot deny benefit of study leave/NOC contrary to statutory service rules framed under Article 309 – Policy decision inconsistent with statutory rules unsustainable [Paras 8–10, 34–36].

Administrative Law – Policy Decision – Judicial Review – Limits – While State has discretion in service policy, such discretion subject to constitutional limitations – Policy dated 02.09.2022 lacked reasons for excluding Sponsored DNB – Reasons cannot be supplemented by affidavits – Decision must stand on reasons contained therein – Held: Policy clause refusing NOC for Sponsored DNB arbitrary and unreasonable [Paras 30–38].

Constitution of India – Equality before Law – Manifest Arbitrariness – Differential treatment of OMHS doctors opting for Sponsored DNB versus Non-Sponsored DNB – Both governed by same service conditions – No rational nexus with object sought to be achieved – Policy struck down as violative of Article 14 [Paras 22–24, 39].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – State directed to grant No Objection Certificate to petitioner to enable participation in Centralized Merit Based Counselling for Sponsored DNB (Post MBBS) 2025 – NOC to be issued by 02.01.2026 – Consequential participation in counselling permitted – No order as to costs [Para 40].

Civil Law – First appeal in Waqf title/possession suits – Additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 – Gazette Notification (30/11/1961) sought by Waqf Board and ryotwari patta/revenue proceedings and prior decree sought by defendants – Held: documents being crucial public documents, admissible as additional evidence – suits remanded for proof and fresh decision – trial court decree set aside [Paras 14-28, 29-32].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Scope – Though appellate court ordinarily does not travel beyond trial record, additional evidence may be permitted where required to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause – Court may allow evidence even if it can decide on existing record, if interests of justice require filling up obscurity or lacuna – requirement is of the court upon appreciation of the record – K. Venkataramiah principle applied [Paras 21-23].

Waqf Property – Gazette Notification – Public document – Waqf Board sought to file attested Gazette Notification dated 30/11/1961 showing suit land notified as Waqf – document pre-dated suits and was directly relevant to determination of character/title of property – receiving notification as additional evidence would not cause prejudice as opposite party gets opportunity to meet and cross-examine – delay not a ground to reject when crucial to settle dispute [Paras 18-25].

Defendants’ Additional Evidence – Ryotwari patta proceedings and related revenue/writ records – Defendants sought reception of copies of Settlement Officer proceedings dated 29/04/1981, Commissioner (Survey/Settlement/Land Records) proceedings dated 03/05/1982, W.P.No.13562/1990 order dated 19/09/1990, MRO proceedings Rc.No.371/1990 dated 08/10/1990 and letter dated 22/10/1991, and judgment/decree in O.S.No.114/1943 dated 21/07/1944 – held to be public documents, prior in time to suit, and crucial in possession/title dispute – allowed subject to proof and relevancy – parties must prove existence, authenticity, genuineness and contents in accordance with law [Paras 26-28].

Remand – Common judgment in three suits – Additional evidence crucial to real controversy – Since both sides allowed to adduce additional evidence, matter required fresh consideration by trial court after proof of documents – common decree dated 31/03/2001 set aside – O.S.Nos.75, 76 and 77 of 1995 restored and remanded – trial court directed to permit additional evidence, hear parties, and decide on merits uninfluenced by earlier findings – records to be transmitted – no costs [Paras 29-32].

Decision: A.S.Nos.1725, 1726 & 1727 of 2001 allowed – I.A.No.1 of 2025 (by Waqf Board) allowed – I.A.No.1 of 2023 (by defendants) allowed – Common judgment and decree dated 31/03/2001 set aside – Suits remanded to Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili for fresh disposal after proof of additional documents – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 31-32].

Criminal Law – Murder and Gang Rape – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Accused were convicted by the trial court for rape and murder of a 19-year-old woman whose body was recovered from a well four days after she was reported missing – Conviction based on alleged last seen theory, motive of failed love affair, and statements of family members – High Court held that prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances that excluded every other hypothesis except guilt – Circumstantial links were neither cogent nor consistent – No reliable forensic evidence linking accused to crime – Held: Conviction unsustainable, appellants acquitted by extending benefit of doubt [Paras 8, 15, 20, 24, 34, 46, 53].

Evidence – Last Seen Theory – PW-1 (mother of deceased), PW-8, and PW-11 claimed to have seen deceased last with accused No.1 on day of disappearance – However, contradictions in time, behaviour of witnesses, and delay in naming accused in statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC weakened credibility – Court held that last seen theory alone is insufficient without corroboration – Conduct of witnesses found unnatural – Held: Last seen theory not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 17, 18, 23, 25, 29, 32].

Evidence – Motive and Relationship Allegation – Prosecution alleged a love affair between deceased and accused No.1 as motive for murder after rejection – No documentary or phone record evidence produced – Statements from family members vague, unsubstantiated – Alleged love affair denied by accused – Court found no motive established on record – Held: Mere suggestion of love affair, without credible proof, cannot substitute legal evidence [Paras 15, 16, 23, 27, 30].

Forensic Evidence – Absence of Conclusive Scientific Corroboration – Clothes of deceased sent for chemical analysis showed no semen or DNA match – Statements of medical officer regarding possibility of sexual assault were inconclusive – No injuries suggesting forcible rape – Recovery of clothes and stick allegedly used in crime unconnected to accused – Held: Forensic evidence failed to support prosecution case [Paras 20, 38, 39, 41, 42, 46].

Benefit of Doubt – Incomplete Chain of Circumstances – Prosecution’s case entirely based on circumstantial evidence – Chain not proved to be unbroken – Significant contradictions and omissions in witness statements – Delay in lodging FIR and contradictions in names of persons last seen with the deceased – Trial court erred in ignoring material gaps in evidence – Held: Appellants entitled to acquittal as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 43, 49, 52, 53, 54].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 302, 376(2)(g), and 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Directed to be released unless required in any other case [Para 54].

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Delay in Charge-sheet – Petitioner challenged two charge-sheets issued in 2019 and 2024 for alleged fraudulent medical reimbursements from 2010-2015 – Contended that unexplained delay of nearly a decade renders the action invalid – Held: Mere delay is not sufficient to quash disciplinary proceedings unless prejudice is shown – Considering seriousness of charges involving forged medical documents and misuse of public funds, proceedings are valid [Paras 5–17].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Double Jeopardy – Allegation that issuance of charge-sheets after earlier show cause notice amounts to double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution – Held: No prior punishment or prosecution initiated on basis of earlier documents – Hence, subsequent departmental proceedings do not violate Article 20(2) [Paras 18–22].

Departmental Enquiry – Validity of Multiple Charge-sheets – Second charge-sheet (2024) contained same allegations as first (2019) – Court noted no enquiry was conducted under 2019 charge-sheet – Held: Second charge-sheet presumed to supersede earlier – Enquiry to continue under 2024 charge-sheet – No illegality found [Paras 20–21].

Malafide Allegation – Petitioner claimed bias on part of respondent officer – Court found only vague assertions without supporting material – Held: Bald allegation of mala fide not sufficient to quash administrative action [Para 23].

Precedents – Delay in Initiating Proceedings – Petitioner relied on MP High Court decisions quashing delayed charge-sheets – Court distinguished them on facts – Held: No universal rule to quash charge-sheets solely due to delay – Each case must be decided based on gravity of charges and circumstances – Serious financial misconduct warrants enquiry [Paras 24–25].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Charge-sheet dated 12/12/2024 upheld – Respondents allowed to continue enquiry under said charge-sheet – Directed to conclude proceedings expeditiously – Interim relief stands vacated.

Public Trust – Change Reports – Sequential Change Reports – Cascading Effect – Multiple writ petitions arising from rejection of sequential change reports under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act – Acceptance or rejection of one change report having direct bearing on subsequent change reports – Held: If the foundational change report is invalid, all consequential change reports necessarily fail [Paras 2–3, 27–31].

Permanent / Hereditary Trustee – Interpretation of Trust Deed – Trust instrument provided for appointment of one permanent trustee from the family of the settler (Param Pujya Shri Kshirsagar Maharaj) under Clause 10 – Clause 14 providing retirement of 1/3rd trustees every three years not applicable to permanent trustee – Permanent trustee’s tenure not limited by rotation clause – Held: Appointment of Milind Govind Kshirsagar was permanent and continuous [Paras 10–14].

Power of Removal of Trustee – Trust Instrument – Clause 11 of trust deed enumerates contingencies for reduction of trusteeship but does not confer power on remaining trustees to remove a trustee – Mere power of appointment does not imply power of removal – Held: Remaining trustees have no authority under trust deed to remove even a defaulting trustee [Paras 14–15].

Removal of Trustee – Statutory Scheme – Maharashtra Public Trusts Act – Removal, suspension or dismissal of a trustee can only be effected by Charity Commissioner / Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 41D – Assistant Charity Commissioner has no power to direct trustees to remove a trustee – Trustees cannot usurp statutory powers vested exclusively in Charity Commissioner [Paras 15–17].

Inspector’s Inquiry Report – Scope and Effect – Inquiry report under Sections 37–41B can at best form basis for further statutory action – Report cannot be acted upon by trustees to remove trustee – Proper course is submission of report to Charity Commissioner for action under Section 41D [Paras 17–18].

Natural Justice – Removal Resolution – Validity – No specific agenda for removal mentioned in notice of meeting dated 05.03.2003 – Removal resolution sprung without prior notice – Reporting trustee himself contradicted trust’s case – Affidavits of other trustees lacking credibility – Held: Meeting dated 13.03.2003 was orchestrated and removal was vitiated [Paras 19–24].

Change Report No.557/2003 – Removal of Milind Kshirsagar – Removal of permanent trustee by trustees held illegal – Concurrent findings of Assistant Charity Commissioner and Joint Charity Commissioner upheld – Writ Petition No.9544 of 2025 dismissed [Paras 24].

Appointment in Absence of Vacancy – Invalid – Since permanent trustee was never lawfully removed, no vacancy arose – Appointment of Sudhir Kshirsagar and other trustees invalid ab initio – Consent of appointee not proved – Subsequent change reports rightly rejected [Paras 25–28].

Procedural Irregularities – Meetings and Appointments – Failure to comply with notice period, quorum requirements and proof of consent – Inconsistent minutes and affidavits not tested by cross-examination – Concurrent factual findings not perverse – Writ court will not interfere [Paras 28–29].

Scope of Writ Jurisdiction – Concurrent Findings – High Court will not reappreciate evidence where findings of Charity Authorities are based on material and are not perverse – All writ petitions challenging rejection of change reports dismissed [Paras 29–30].

Trust Administration – Structural Deadlock – Judicial Intervention – Continuous rejection of change reports resulted in governance vacuum – No general body of voters – Trustees holding office without lawful basis – Court invoked powers to protect trust and its objects [Paras 31–33].

Directions under Section 50A – Reconstitution of Trust – Assistant Charity Commissioner directed to amend trust constitution by inducting devotees/worshippers as members – Provision for enrollment of members – Trustees to be elected with fixed terms – Permanent trustee from settler’s family to be retained as per settler’s intention – Timeline of 18 months prescribed for implementation [Paras 33].

Decision: All Writ Petitions dismissed – Rule discharged – Directions issued for amendment of trust constitution under Section 50A – Civil Application disposed of.

Criminal Law - NIA Act – Section 21 – Appeal against order framing charge – Maintainability – Held: order framing charge is interlocutory for purposes of appeal under NIA Act – appeals dismissed as not maintainable – remedy lies under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS [Paras 1–20].

Criminal Procedure – National Investigation Agency Act – Section 21 – Appeal – Scope – Expression “judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order” – Interpreted in light of scheme and object of NIA Act – Held: “order” refers to final orders capable of appellate scrutiny on facts and law – Not intermediate orders such as framing of charge [Paras 15–18].

Charge – Framing of – Nature of order – Though treated as “intermediate order” for purposes of revision under Section 397 CrPC, such classification not applicable while interpreting appellate provision under Section 21 NIA Act – Order framing charge does not finally determine rights and proceedings continue till conviction or acquittal – Hence interlocutory for appeal under NIA Act [Paras 11–12, 16–18].

Statutory Interpretation – Purposeful interpretation – NIA Act enacted to ensure expeditious investigation and trial of scheduled offences affecting national security – Bar on revisions and limited appellate remedy intended to avoid delay – Permitting appeals against charge-framing orders would defeat legislative intent [Paras 13–16].

Appeal vs. Revision – Distinction – Jurisprudence on “intermediate orders” developed in context of revisional jurisdiction under CrPC (Amar Nath; Madhu Limaye) – Same concept cannot be bodily imported into appellate jurisdiction providing appeal “on facts and law” – At stage of charge, factual adjudication impermissible [Paras 8–12, 16].

Remedy of Accused – Availability – Though appeal under Section 21 NIA Act not maintainable, accused not remediless – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS remains available to challenge framing of charge on limited grounds of abuse of process, lack of jurisdiction or manifest injustice [Paras 16–18].

Precedent – V.C. Shukla v. State – Constitution Bench – Order framing charge held interlocutory under Special Courts Act – Principles applied while interpreting Section 21 NIA Act – Appeal against charge-framing order not envisaged [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeals dismissed on ground of maintainability – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 19–20].

Civil Law – Amendment of Pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Suit filed in 1995 based on major settlement RoR – Amendment sought in 2025 to introduce consolidation plot number for plaintiffs’ land alone – High Court held that such amendment at argument stage without including defendants’ corresponding plot from consolidation records would cause prejudice – Held: Amendment not essential for adjudication and likely to complicate proceedings – Impugned order allowing amendment set aside [Paras 2–9]

Pleadings – Principles Governing Amendment – Reference to Chakreshwari Construction case – Court reiterated that amendments must not fundamentally alter the nature of the case or prejudice the opposite party – Amendment must be necessary, bona fide, and non-prejudicial – Proposed amendment failed on these counts – Suit can be adjudicated on basis of original settlement records alone [Paras 6–9]

Delay and Procedural Fairness – Suit delayed due to remand after decree – No explanation for belated amendment – Consolidation RoR came into effect during pendency but was not relied on earlier – Selective reference to new land records without matching updates for both parties held unfair – Amendment termed unnecessary and likely to trigger further procedural complexity [Paras 5–9]

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed – Order dated 09.10.2025 passed by Gram Nyayalaya allowing amendment set aside – Amendment application rejected

Service Law – Selection Grade – Non-Communication of Adverse ACRs – Grant Upheld – Pharmacist denied selection grade benefit from 13.04.1977 while juniors were granted the same – Denial based on average ACRs for 1970–1973 which were never communicated to employee – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held such ACRs could not be relied upon – Held: In light of Supreme Court rulings, all ACRs, including “average” or “good”, must be communicated – Non-communication renders denial of benefit arbitrary and illegal [Paras 7–17].

Administrative Law – Washed-Off Theory – Efficiency Bar Crossed – Employee had crossed efficiency bar on 01.11.1976 – Courts below rightly held that earlier average ACRs were liable to be ignored – Such entries deemed to be “washed off” and could not be the basis for denying selection grade [Paras 11, 18].

Limitation – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Waiver – Issue of limitation framed but not pressed by the State before Trial Court or Appellate Court – No grounds raised in Regular Second Appeal on this issue – Held: Fresh plea barred – Even on merits, limitation not made out as cause of action arose only with letter dated 21.07.1987 granting partial benefit – Suit filed on 09.03.1990 within prescribed 3-year period [Paras 20–24].

Judicial Review – Concurrent Findings – Interference Unwarranted – Concurrent judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court based on cogent reasoning and legal principles – No perversity shown – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 19, 25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court and First Appellate Court judgments upheld – Respondent entitled to selection grade w.e.f. 13.04.1977 – Plea of limitation rejected both on procedural waiver and substantive grounds.

Co-operative Law – Review Jurisdiction – Reference to Larger Bench – Review petition filed against judgment restoring money decree passed by Co-operative Court – Review based on subsequent coordinate Bench decision holding that Co-operative Courts lack jurisdiction for recovery above ₹10 lakh – Court held that issue raises substantial questions of law requiring authoritative determination – Matter referred to larger Bench instead of deciding review on merits [Paras 1, 75–79].

Banking Law – Co-operative Banks – Applicability of RDB Act – Core issue whether State co-operative banks fall within definition of “bank” under Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of RDB Act – Petitioner relying on Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule contended that co-operative banks are banking companies and must approach DRT exclusively – Respondents contended that said judgment was confined to SARFAESI Act and did not extend RDB Act to State co-operative banks – Court held issue remains unresolved [Paras 2, 33–48].

Jurisdiction – Conflict between Central and State Laws – Section 91 MCS Act vs. Sections 17 & 18 RDB Act – Whether recovery proceedings by State co-operative banks before Co-operative Courts stand barred by RDB Act – Court noted absence of express inclusion of State co-operative banks under RDB Act, contrasted with express inclusion of multi-State co-operative banks – Held that jurisdictional exclusion cannot be conclusively determined without larger Bench ruling [Paras 49–71].

Constitutional Law – Legislative Competence – Entries 45 List I and 32 List II – Banking and recovery of bank dues fall under Entry 45 (Union List), while co-operative societies fall under Entry 32 (State List) – Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule weakened constitutional foundation of Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank but did not expressly overrule its conclusions on RDB Act – Striking down of Part IX-B in Rajendra N. Shah further complicates analysis – Issue held fit for reference [Paras 72–75].

Precedent – Overruling by Implication – Limits – Court reiterated that judgments cannot be treated as overruled by implication unless irreconcilable conflict exists on same issue – Held that Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule does not expressly overrule Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank on applicability of RDB Act – Coordinate Bench decision in Washim Urban raises debatable legal position [Paras 22–48].

Procedure – Reference under Appellate Side Rules – Exercising powers under Chapter I Rule 8 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, Court referred substantial question of law to Hon’ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench – Review petition to remain pending till reference is answered [Paras 76–79].

Decision: Question of law referred to larger Bench – Review Petition kept pending – Registry directed to place papers before Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders – Matter to be decided in accordance with law laid down by larger Bench [Paras 76–79].