Election Law – Rejection of Election Petition – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Application for rejection of election petition on grounds of vague pleadings and lack of cause of action – Allegations included concealment of assets in Form 26, improper acceptance of nomination, and non-compliance with mandatory provisions regarding EVM/VVPAT use – Held: Petition discloses material facts and poses triable issues – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 not warranted [Paras 1, 30–34].

Material Facts – Concealment of Assets – Petitioner alleged suppression of property and liabilities by the returned candidate in election affidavit – Revenue documents annexed – Held: Sufficient disclosure of material facts pleaded – Applicant's explanations and defences are matters of trial, not grounds for rejection at the threshold [Paras 2, 17, 30–31].

Nomination Challenge – Improper Rejection of Objection – Petitioner alleged her objection to the nomination was wrongly rejected by Returning Officer on erroneous grounds – Documents regarding objection annexed – Held: Pleadings raise substantial triable issue under Section 100(1)(d)(i) – Not liable to be struck down at threshold [Paras 17–18, 31].

EVM/VVPAT Irregularities – Non-compliance with Section 61A – Petitioner alleged absence of permanent identification on EVMs and denial of information under Rule 93 – Forensic examination sought – Held: Allegations sufficiently pleaded to warrant trial under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act [Paras 18, 32–33].

Verification and Form Compliance – Petition accompanied with Form 25 and verified per Section 83 – Held: No defect in verification or affidavit that renders petition liable to rejection [Para 19].

Cause of Action – Pleadings Disclose Triable Issues – Petition sets out basic and primary facts to challenge election under statutory grounds – Distinguished from cases where pleadings were vague or defective – Petition not liable to rejection at the threshold [Paras 29–34].

Decision: Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed – Election Petition to proceed to trial.

Labour Law – Termination – Loss of Confidence – Termination Held Illegal – Reinstatement with Continuity Upheld – Industrial Tribunal found that the plea of “loss of confidence” was unsubstantiated – Termination declared illegal – Workman reinstated with continuity of service – Tribunal awarded 25% back wages – Held: Findings on illegality of termination justified and not interfered with [Paras 1, 10]

Industrial Disputes – Back Wages – No Rigid Formula – Award Enhanced from 25% to 50% – Principles of Equity and Justice Applied – Workman served for three years – Management failed to prove gainful employment of workman during period of enforced idleness – In absence of any proven misconduct or valid justification for termination, denial of higher back wages unjustified – Court enhanced back wages to 50% from date of termination till reinstatement – Payment directed within four weeks with 9% interest on default [Paras 11-13]

Judicial Review – Scope in Reinstatement and Back Wages – Courts Must Consider All Circumstances – Referring to Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, and Hindustan Tin Works, Court reiterated that reinstatement ordinarily follows full or substantial back wages unless gainful employment shown – Tribunal must consider length of service, nature of termination, and conduct of parties – Denial of back wages penalizes workman despite employer’s wrongdoing [Paras 5, 8-9]

Precedents – Principles Governing Back Wages – Affirmed – Court discussed Supreme Court precedents including U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mithu Singh, General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, and Deepali Gundu Surwase – Held: No thumb rule exists – Determination must be case-specific, guided by equity, justice, and good conscience [Paras 6-9]

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Impugned award modified – Back wages enhanced from 25% to 50% from date of termination till reinstatement – Amount to be paid within four weeks, failing which interest @9% per annum shall apply.

Service Law – Displacement Quota – Employment – G.O.Ms.No.98 – Delay in Application – Writ petitioner, son of displaced person from Dachuru village, filed application for employment 10 years after displacement – Rejection of claim by authorities citing limitation of one year under G.O.Ms.No.98 – Held: One-year limitation cannot be strictly enforced in light of settled precedents and State policy – Authorities directed to include petitioner in the first seniority list based on eligibility – Petitioner entitled to appointment as per turn under displacement quota [Paras 4, 8(I), 10, 11].

Administrative Law – Seniority List – Violation of Natural Justice – Second seniority list of 106 displaced persons was set aside by the learned single Judge without impleading affected parties – Held: Order is unsustainable being passed in violation of principles of natural justice – Affected candidates were not heard – Order set aside – Government Memo restoring second seniority list reinstated – Beneficiaries of the second list directed to be provided employment as per their turn [Paras 6, 8(III), 10(i)].

Displacement & Rehabilitation – Seniority Classification – Two-tier seniority system maintained for displaced persons based on actual submergence and displacement – Dachuru village formed part of the first list where water impoundment and displacement occurred in 2005 – Petitioner wrongly sought inclusion in second list instead of first – Court clarified distinction between lists and corrected placement accordingly [Paras 5, 8(II), 11].

Precedent – Relaxation of Time Limit – High Court reaffirmed position laid down in earlier judgment State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rajola Jagannadha Reddy, W.A. No. 356 of 2023 – One-year application time under G.O.Ms.No.98 is not mandatory – Policy aims at livelihood protection and must be interpreted liberally for displaced families [Paras 8(I)(c)-(d)].

Decision:

Writ Appeal No. 315 of 2024 allowed – Order of single Judge dated 05.01.2023 set aside – Government Memo dated 26.12.2014 approving second seniority list restored – Authorities directed to provide employment to appellants as per their turn under G.O.Ms.No.98 [Para 10(i)-(ii)].

Writ Appeal No. 1289 of 2023 disposed of – Authorities directed to include writ petitioner’s name in the first seniority list, not the second – Employment to be provided as per eligibility and turn under displacement quota [Para 11].

Criminal Law – FIR Quashing – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Cognizance Taken – FIR lodged in 2024 for alleged sexual harassment incidents dating back to 2018–2020 – FIR registered under Sections 354A, 354D, 506, and 509 IPC – Charge sheet later filed under Sections 354 and 354A IPC – Held: FIR not barred merely due to Section 468 Cr.P.C. which limits cognizance by court, not registration by police – Petition under Section 482 maintainable despite charge sheet being filed subsequently [Paras 7–10, 15, 27, 31]

Limitation – Cognizance After Delay – Sections 468 and 473 Cr.P.C. – Complaint filed after more than four years of alleged offence – Court held FIR and investigation not barred by limitation – However, cognizance of offence punishable with imprisonment up to three years requires trial court to apply mind to condonation under Section 473 – Trial court had taken cognizance under Section 354 IPC without considering delay – Held: Allegations, even if accepted, attract only Section 354A IPC (max punishment 3 years) – Matter remanded to trial court to consider condonation of delay afresh [Paras 23–24, 32–35]

Sexual Offences – Section 354 vs 354A IPC – Interpretation – Complaint alleged inappropriate touching, pulling hand, and removal of saree pin – Court held these acts do not meet threshold of "outraging modesty" under Section 354 IPC – Allegations fall within purview of sexual harassment under Section 354A IPC – Charge under Section 354 IPC not sustainable on face of complaint – Cognizance under Section 354 IPC quashed [Paras 22–23, 33]

Quashing Scope – Stage of Charge Sheet – Legal Position – Court reaffirmed that quashing can be sought even after charge sheet filing and cognizance, if ingredients of alleged offences are not prima facie made out – Cited Anand Kumar Mohatta and Joseph Salvaraj decisions – Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. extends beyond FIR stage [Paras 14–16]

Decision: Criminal petition partly allowed – Cognizance under Section 354 IPC set aside – Case remanded to trial court to consider condonation of delay under Section 473 Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 354A IPC and proceed accordingly – Trial court to determine afresh whether cognizance can be taken for offence punishable under Section 354A IPC in light of limitation [Paras 35–36]

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Attempt to Commit – Section 308 IPC – Appellant convicted for assaulting victim with blunt weapons along with others, causing grievous injuries – Conviction upheld based on testimony of injured eyewitness and corroborative medical evidence – Appellant did not challenge conviction on merits – Appeal limited to sentence modification [Paras 3, 7–8].

Probation – Release on Good Conduct – Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Appellant aged 50 years, employed as a security guard, with peaceful conduct and no criminal history – Social Investigation Report found favourable – Incident occurred 24 years ago and sentence served partially – Held: Appellant deserves benefit of probation – Substantive sentence modified – Appellant directed to furnish bond for one year with conditions of good behaviour [Paras 9–13].

Judicial Discretion – Sentencing – Court emphasised reformative approach – Referenced Supreme Court precedents in Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab and Chellammal v. State, reiterating duty of courts to consider probation where conditions under Section 4(1) are met – Held: Courts must balance nature of offence with potential for reformation [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Conviction maintained – Sentence of imprisonment set aside – Appellant released on probation for one year with surety and bond of ₹10,000 – Fine maintained – Appeal partly allowed [Para 13].

Property Law – Partition Suit – Effect of Previous Litigation – Interpretation of Decree – Appellants (Plaintiffs) sought partition of joint property claiming half share – Respondent (Defendant) contended that Appellants lost rights due to failure to pay Rs. 5,300/- as ordered in a previous Second Appeal (S.A. No. 641 of 1988) – First Appellate Court dismissed the partition suit on grounds of non-compliance with the previous decree – High Court held that the previous decree only created a charge on the property for the amount due and did not extinguish the Appellants' title – The previous judgment clarified that title would not pass without a registered relinquishment deed, which was never executed – Held: First Appellate Court misconstrued the clauses of the earlier decree; the remedy for Respondent was execution/auction, not denial of partition – Plaintiffs entitled to partition [Paras 15-18, 20].

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Oral Agreement – Respondent claimed an oral agreement existed wherein Appellants agreed to sell their share for Rs. 1,00,000/- – No evidence produced to substantiate the oral agreement – High Court found that the First Appellate Court erred by reversing the Trial Court’s decree without proper appreciation of evidence – High Court noted that Appellants had eventually deposited the requisite amount with the Trial Court – Findings of the First Appellate Court were vitiated by misinterpretation of documentary evidence (Ex. A-1) – Interference under Section 100 CPC justified when findings are perverse or based on misconstruction of documents [Paras 14, 19-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court (decreeing the suit for partition) restored – Each party to bear their own costs.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction – Revisional Jurisdiction – Petitioners convicted for dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- issued as partial refund for unfulfilled property sale agreement – Defence pleaded coercion in obtaining the cheque and refund agreement, and denied receipt of original consideration – Held: Mere lodging of a police complaint by the accused alleging coercion, without further corroborative evidence or legal steps to challenge the agreement, is insufficient to displace statutory presumption – Existence of signed Refund Agreement acknowledging liability of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- weakens defence – Failure to produce financial records to disprove receipt of consideration renders the defence of "no liability" improbable – Concurrent findings of guilt by Trial Court and Revisional Court upheld [Paras 16-19, 24].

Evidence – Statutory Presumption – Rebuttal – Minor Discrepancies – Petitioners argued that the Complainant failed to specify the exact place of signing/handing over the cheque during cross-examination – Held: Once the issuance of the cheque and signature are admitted, technical omissions regarding the place of execution do not constitute material contradictions – Such minor discrepancies cannot defeat the prosecution case when the accused fails to prove their defence affirmatively [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Revisional application dismissed – Judgment and order of conviction and sentence affirmed – Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 directed to surrender within 15 days to serve the sentence – Stay prayer rejected.

Service Law – Deputy Librarian – Nomenclature change under G.O. 26.12.1998 – No automatic enhancement of retirement age to 62 years – Higher pay scale wrongly granted but recovery after 17 years impermissible – Retirement at 60 upheld; recovery quashed; pension to be fixed on last pay drawn [Paras 10–16].

Service Benefits – Change of Nomenclature – Whether Retirement Age Altered – Government Order dated 26.12.1998 changed designation of Deputy Librarian (₹2000–3200) to Librarian with UGC pay scale; however, G.O. contains no provision altering age of retirement. Held: Retirement age must be strictly as per service rules; mere change of nomenclature does not alter superannuation benefits. Retirement at 60 years was valid [Paras 10–12].

Pay Scale – Eligibility – Erroneous Grant of Librarian Scale – Petitioner was in pay scale ₹1400–2300, not ₹2000–3200 as required under G.O. 26.12.1998. Therefore, grant of UGC-linked higher pay scale was factually and legally incorrect; strict interpretation of G.O. goes against petitioner [Paras 12–13].

Recovery of Excess Payment – Long Delay – No Fraud – Protection under Rafiq Masih – Although pay scale was wrongly granted, petitioner enjoyed the scale for 17 years, including revised UGC benefits, without misrepresentation. Applying State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2014) 8 SCC 883, recovery after retirement—especially after nearly two decades—is inequitable and impermissible. Held: Recovery order unsustainable [Paras 14–15].

Retirement Age Claim – Rejection Justified – Since petitioner never received a valid promotion to Librarian post and G.O. does not regulate retirement age, claim to work till 62 years is untenable. Petitioner had already crossed 62 during litigation; no relief could be granted [Paras 3–7, 11–12].

Final Relief – Partial Allowance – Prayer to extend service till 62 years rejected; however, respondents restrained from recovering any amount paid under higher pay scale. Pension to be calculated on basis of last pay actually drawn (higher pay scale) and not on pre-2001 scale. Impugned recovery orders set aside [Para 16].

Banking Law – Debit Freezing of Accounts – Suspicious Transactions – No Law Enforcement Requisition – Banks froze petitioners' accounts based on internal suspicion of large-value transactions inconsistent with declared income profiles – No directions received from law enforcement or court for account freezing – Held: Though RBI directions do not explicitly authorize debit freezing without law enforcement requisition, such power is implied in light of Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act and duties under PMLA – Banks can temporarily freeze accounts for a reasonable period (up to 3 months) to prevent dissipation of suspected illicit funds and allow time for investigation [Paras 1, 14–16, 25–26].

Cybercrime – Preventive Banking Measures – Role of RBI and Banks – Need for SOP – Rapid rise in financial cyber fraud and misuse of bank accounts for illegal transactions noted – Court found RBI’s current circulars and directions inadequate in addressing freezing protocol – RBI criticized for casual affidavit disclaiming responsibility – Directed to frame Standard Operating Procedure defining scope and procedure for account freezing by banks in cases of suspected cybercrime [Paras 14, 24, 27(2)].

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300A – Petitioners challenged prolonged freezing of accounts (over one year) as violation of property rights – Though freezing without requisition prima facie unlawful, petitioners failed to provide credible explanation for high-volume transactions not matching declared income – Held: In absence of satisfactory justification, bank action not arbitrary – Court issued future guidelines but declined to grant immediate relief [Paras 5–6, 15–16, 20–21].

Mandated Eight-Point Freezing Protocol:

Banks can impose a debit freeze without prior notice if there is reasonable suspicion of illegal transactions.

On the same day, the bank must send a communication to the account holder via SMS and registered post, clearly stating the reason for suspicion.

The bank must also inform the jurisdictional cybercrime police and other relevant authorities under RBI guidelines and ensure receipt of such communication.

The account holder has the right to respond with a written explanation to the bank. Upon receiving it, the bank must evaluate it within one week and communicate its decision.

If no explanation is received, or if the bank finds it unsatisfactory, the freeze can continue only for a maximum of three months, starting from the date of communication to law enforcement authorities.

If, within this three-month window, the bank receives no formal direction from the police, cybercrime cell, or court, it must lift the freeze.

After lifting the freeze, the bank may allow the account to function normally or demand its closure, depending on continued risk.

The account holder has a legal remedy and can challenge the bank’s decision if the explanation is rejected.

RBI Guidelines – KYC/AML Circulars – Interpretation of “Appropriate Action” – Circulars cited (Master Direction on KYC, 2016 and others) mandate monitoring of suspicious transactions and reporting to FIU-IND but do not expressly empower banks to freeze accounts – Court interpreted “appropriate action” under Clause 59 to include temporary freezing where justified, in absence of better-defined guidance – However, freezing must follow safeguards including prompt notice to customer and notification to police/cybercrime units [Paras 18–20, 26–27].

Administrative Law – Court-Issued Guidelines in Policy Vacuum – In absence of statutory framework or RBI SOP on freezing accounts for suspicious activity, High Court issued eight-point interim guideline authorizing debit freeze by banks for up to three months, subject to procedural safeguards, until RBI prescribes formal directions [Para 27].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed – Banks directed to follow eight-point guideline laid down by the Court regarding freezing of suspicious accounts – RBI directed to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure on freezing of accounts in cases of suspected financial cybercrime – Petitioners not granted immediate relief as they failed to satisfactorily explain high-value transactions [Paras 27–28].