Criminal Revision Petition – Charges framed under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC – Petitioner challenges the impugned order of the Revisional Court – High Court examines the legality of the charges and the deletion thereof – Whether the charges of forgery can be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the forged document – High Court upholds the impugned order. [Para 1]

Principles for Framing Charges – Court’s power to sift and weigh evidence at the stage of framing charges – Court to determine whether a prima facie case exists – Court not required to meticulously judge evidence or weigh the provable defense of the accused – Standard of test and judgment at this stage different from the one applied for determining guilt – Charge of forgery requires the accused to be the maker of the forged document. [Para 16-17]

Petitioner’s Contentions – Allegations of fraud and forgery against respondent No. 2 (Vishal Gupta) in a property transaction – Charges framed under Sections 467/468/471 IPC against respondent No. 2 deleted by the Revisional Court – Petitioner’s challenge to the deletion of charges and direction to register FIR against him – High Court examines arguments and finds no infirmity in the impugned order – Charges rightly deleted based on the settled legal position. [Para 27-28]

Opportunity of Hearing – Petitioner’s contention of not being given an opportunity to address arguments before the Revisional Court – Court’s examination of the impugned order confirms that due opportunity was provided to the petitioner during the proceedings. [Para 19-21]

Quashing of FIR – Petitioner’s prayer to quash the direction to register FIR against him not adequately addressed – Absence of arguments and supporting documents regarding the status of the FIR – High Court denies relief in this regard at the present stage. [Para 29-30]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Bail – Regular Bail – Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner in custody for almost 4 years and 1 month in connection with FIR No.103 dated 07.05.2019 – Offenses registered under Sections 307, 353, 186, 224, 225, 34, 379-B, and 120-B IPC (Section 411 IPC added subsequently) and Section 25/27 of Arms Act at Police Station City Kapurthala, Punjab – Petitioner’s name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused – Allegations of firing shots against co-accused already in custody – Trial not progressing, charges not framed, and a total of 35 witnesses – Two co-accused granted regular bail by the High Court in previous orders – Petitioner involved in other cases but currently out on bail for all of them – Reliance placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382 – Observations that mere criminal antecedents and gravity of the alleged crime should not be the sole basis for denial of bail – Petitioner granted regular bail – Conditions imposed to ensure compliance. (Para No.1-10)

Civil Procedure – Non-Impleadment of Legal Representatives –Civil Revision against the order of the trial court dismissing the suit against a deceased defendant for non-impleadment of his legal representatives – CPC Order XXII, Rule 4 as amended for Punjab and Haryana allows the suit to proceed – Trial court directed to continue proceedings as if the deceased defendant were alive – Held that the amendment aims to prevent the halting of proceedings due to the death of a party and to ensure the joint interest of all parties is protected. [Paras 1-18]

Objective of Amendment – Continuation of Proceedings –Held – The amendment to Order XXII Rule 4 CPC is intended to avoid delays and ensure the continuation of suits despite the death of a defendant – Legal representatives have the option to apply for impleadment at any stage – The principle ensures that the interests of deceased defendants are represented. [Para 17-18]

Decision – Setting Aside of Dismissal Order –The court set aside the trial court’s order dismissing the suit against the deceased defendant – The trial court is instructed to proceed with the suit as if the deceased defendant were alive – The amendment prevents abatement of suits due to non-impleadment of legal representatives. [Para 18]

Criminal case – Bail – Petitioner filed for regular bail in FIR No. 148, dated 27^th June 2021, under Sections 15, 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Petitioner seeks parity with co-accused who was granted regular bail in a previous case (Para 1 and 2).

False Implication Allegation – Petitioner’s counsel alleges that ASI Jagtar Singh, the investigating officer, has a history of falsely implicating accused individuals in NDPS cases – Reference made to a previous FIR registered against ASI Jagtar Singh under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Para 4).

Lack of Progress in Trial – Petitioners have been in custody since June 2021, and there is no substantial progress in the trial – No further recovery made during the investigation (Para 10).

Grant of Bail – Bail Conditions – Petitioners are granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned The court grants bail to the petitioner and co-accused based on the principle of parity and considering the delay in the trial despite the completion of the investigation (Para 11).

Notable Points – The investigating officer, ASI Jagtar Singh, is facing a vigilance inquiry – The decision to grant bail is specific to this case and should not be treated as a precedent for other cases (Para 14).

Seniority List – Regularization of Ad Hoc Appointees:

The regularisation of ad hoc appointees as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) in the Election Commission of India (ECI) was undertaken much before the appointment of direct recruits. The direct recruits, who were not even on the rolls of the ECI at the time of regularisation, cannot challenge the regularisation of ad hoc appointees as their rights were not affected then. The challenge to regularisation, made after a lapse of 27 to 30 years and with no interference in the regularisation process, cannot be entertained. The seniority in the grade of LDC shall be determined from the date of regular appointment/regularisation of ad hoc appointees, i.e., between 1993-1996, which was before the appointment of direct recruits between 1998-1999. (Para 37-43)

Locus Standi – Barred by Limitation:

The direct recruits cannot have locus standi to challenge the regularisation of ad hoc appointees when they were appointed much later than the regular appointment of ad hoc appointees. The challenge to regularisation, filed after the issuance of the seniority list in 2004, was also barred by limitation. (Para 38)

Rule 5 of Recruitment Rules – Relaxation of Rules:

The regularisation of ad hoc appointees was valid as it was done in accordance with Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules, which permits relaxation by the Central Government. The regularisation was undertaken in view of special circumstances, and the ad hoc appointees were appointed through Employment Exchange with necessary qualifications for the post of LDC. (Para 25, 24)

Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Limitations:

The relief sought by the direct recruits, challenging the regularisation of ad hoc appointees and setting aside the seniority list, cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution after such a long time and without any interference in the regularisation process. (Para 41)

Applicability of Precedents:

The judgments cited by the direct recruits in support of their contentions are distinguishable in the facts of the present case and have no applicability. The regularisation of ad hoc appointees and determination of seniority is not contrary to the principles laid down in the cited judgments. (Para 45)

Decision:

The Tribunal’s decision to set aside the seniority list dated June 11, 2004, and the subsequent direction for recasting the seniority list are unsustainable. The seniority of the ad hoc appointees shall be determined from the date of regularisation/regular appointment, i.e., between 1993-1996, which was before the appointment of direct recruits between 1998-1999. (Para 44)

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 438 – Bail application – Allegations of derogatory comments posted on Facebook against religious figures – Sections 295-A, 153A, and 505(2) IPC – Freedom of expression – Religious sentiments – Communal harmony – Law and order concerns – Dismissal of bail application. (Para 2 to 6, 30 to 31, 34 to 38, and 40).

Police Investigation – Status report and supplementary status reports submitted by the police – Allegations against the applicant – Demonstrations and resentment in the area – Concerns regarding potential law and order issues and ethnic disputes. ( Para 9 to 19, 22 to 27, and 30 to 31)

Freedom of Expression – Applicant’s duty to respect religious beliefs – Need for caution in social media postings – Delicate balance between individual liberty and societal interests.(Para No.35-36)

Dismissal of Bail Application – Seriousness of alleged offense – Potential harm to religious sentiments and communal harmony – Observations confined to bail application – Decision not to grant bail under Section 438 CrPC.(Para39-39)

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Disciplinary Proceedings - Acquittal in Criminal Case - "Honorable Acquittal" - Tribunal modifying punishment - High Court upholds the modification - Peculiar facts and proportionality considered - Acquittal due to failure of prosecution to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt - Passage of time and various rounds of litigation - Petition dismissed - Interim order vacated.

The respondents, police constables and head constables, faced disciplinary proceedings after an undertrial prisoner escaped from their custody. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of forfeiture of ten years of approved service, later reduced to five years by the Appellate Authority. The respondents challenged the punishment through original applications (OAs), which were dismissed by the Tribunal in 2011. Subsequently, the respondents were acquitted in the criminal case based on the prosecution's failure to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court considered the "honorable acquittal" as recognized by the Supreme Court, whereby an accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges. The Court found the Tribunal's modification of the punishment to be proportional, considering the passage of time and multiple rounds of litigation. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the writ petition, vacating the interim order that stayed the impugned order.

[Para Number in Judgment: 22-30]

Service Law - Voluntary Retirement - Qualifying service - Petitioner seeks voluntary retirement from service but the Tribunal rejects the application, holding that the petitioner lacks the required 20 years of qualifying service - Petitioner challenges the rejection before the High Court - Court finds that a letter from the Office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer indicates the petitioner's total qualifying service to be 24 years, 5 months, and 2 days as of October 1, 2016 - Tribunal fails to consider this evidence in its order - Court sets aside the Tribunal's order and remands the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with a direction to examine the service particulars and service book of the petitioner - Court fixes a time limit of six months for the Tribunal to decide the matter. [Para 35-36]

Labour Law - Unauthorised Absence - Reinstatement - Disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner for unauthorised absence - Subsequent proceedings and penalty set aside by the Tribunal, directing reinstatement and counting of the period of absence for other service benefits - Respondents' reply and counter-affidavit do not address the period of absence accurately - Court directs the Tribunal to consider the period of unauthorised absence in its fresh consideration of the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement. [Para 32-33]

Judicial Interpretation - Rule of Law - Application of Rules - Court emphasizes that the Tribunal must consider all relevant evidence and documents before reaching its decision - Failure to do so renders the Tribunal's decision liable for remand. [Para 34]

Principles of Natural Justice – Opportunity of Personal Hearing – Violation – Writ Petition filed to set aside a demand order issued under the CGST Act raising a total demand against the petitioner. Petitioner contends that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice as it was passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing. [Para 2 and Para 7]

Hearing Proceedings – Lack of Clarity – Petitioner appeared for a hearing, but email communication was vague regarding the date. Record of handwritten proceedings showed a different date. No clear evidence of a proper personal hearing. [Para 13]

Statutory Provisions – CGST Act – Section 75(4) and 75(5) – Opportunity of Hearing – Mandatory – Statute requires granting an opportunity of hearing when a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or when any adverse decision is contemplated. Such hearing is not an empty formality but a well-established principle of audi alteram partem. [Para 17 and Para 23]

Personal Hearing vs. Telephonic Conversation – Inadequate Substitution – Telephonic conversations and office visits cannot be considered as equivalent to a proper personal hearing. The principles of natural justice require a meaningful opportunity for a party to present its arguments. [Para 22]

Alternate Remedy – Writ Jurisdiction – Availability of Alternate Remedy – No Absolute Bar – The mere availability of an alternative remedy does not automatically make a writ petition not maintainable. High Courts have discretion to entertain writ petitions even when an alternate remedy exists, especially when there is a violation of principles of natural justice or a clear statutory violation. [Para 30]

Misconduct – Wasting Judicial Time – Imposition of Cost – Respondent’s improper conduct in wasting judicial time by failing to file a counter affidavit and contesting the case without proper response. Respondent directed to pay a cost of ₹5,000, and action may be taken against the officer responsible for such misconduct. [Para 37]

Set Aside and Remand – The impugned demand notice set aside, and the matter remanded to the respondent to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity to be heard. [Para 38]