Service Law – Promotion – Sealed Cover Procedure – Applicability – Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 09.06.2012 – No disciplinary proceedings pending or contemplated as on that date – Vigilance clearance already granted – Charge sheet issued only on 26.09.2012 – Held: Sealed cover procedure impermissible when no proceedings are pending on the date of consideration – Appellant entitled to promotion from date his junior was promoted (01.07.2012) – Action of the Bank contrary to law and violative of equality under Article 14 [Paras 8–11].

Delay and Laches – Writ Petition – Dismissal for Delay – Error – Appellant approached Court promptly after receiving RTI information in 2014 regarding promotion list – Delay not attributable to negligence – Dismissal of writ petition solely on ground of delay unsustainable [Paras 5–9].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Timing of Charge Sheet – Effect on Promotion – When charge sheet issued after DPC meeting, sealed cover procedure unjustified – Reliance placed on Union of India v. Doly Loyi, (2024) SCC (cited) – Disciplinary proceedings initiated subsequently cannot retrospectively affect eligibility already assessed [Para 10].

Administrative Law – Natural Justice – Bank’s failure to act promptly in issuing charge sheet and applying sealed cover contrary to fairness – Employee entitled to consequential promotion and arrears till retirement [Paras 8.1, 11.1].

Relief – Promotion directed from date of junior’s promotion – Pay to be fixed in higher grade – Arrears to be disbursed within three months – Major penalty imposed after retirement left undisturbed as not under challenge [Para 11.1].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of Single Judge set aside – Respondent-Bank directed to promote appellant to Deputy General Manager w.e.f. 01.07.2012, fix pay accordingly, and release arrears within three months – No order as to costs [Paras 11–11.1].

Criminal Law - Quashing – Proclaimed Offender – Compliance with Section 82 CrPC Mandatory – Petitioner declared proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC despite offences being bailable and co-accused having been released on probation – Held: Trial Court failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 82(1) CrPC including absence of 30-day notice, failure to record satisfaction of concealment or absconding, and improper publication – Declaration as proclaimed offender vitiated as being mechanical and illegal [Paras 1–6, 8–9].

Proclamation Proceedings – Quashment – Where proclamation order was passed in violation of Section 82 CrPC and there was no evidence of willful evasion of trial by the petitioner – Held: Criminal proceedings arising from such invalid proclamation liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS to prevent miscarriage of justice – Petitioner had cooperated with investigation and absence was neither deliberate nor intentional [Paras 7–10].

Fair Trial – Procedural Safeguards – Mandatory nature of Section 82 CrPC reaffirmed – Requirement of Court’s satisfaction regarding absconding or concealment, and adherence to the triple-mode publication under Section 82(2), held to be essential – Non-observance renders entire proclamation process and consequential proceedings a nullity [Paras 5–9].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated 01.10.2022 declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender quashed along with all consequential proceedings – Petitioner having cooperated with investigation and not shown to be willfully absconding – Pending applications also disposed of.

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Evidence of Child Witness – The child victim (aged 10 years) consistently deposed about inappropriate touch by her uncle – Her version remained intact despite cross-examination – Court held child’s testimony trustworthy for offence under Section 10 POCSO though not sufficient to establish penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 [Paras 7–10, 16–18].

POCSO Act – Sections 5(l), 5(m), and 6 – Penetrative Sexual Assault – Inconsistencies between victim’s statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and deposition at trial – Medical evidence (MLC) recorded hymen intact, no injury to private parts, and FSL report negative – Held: Prosecution failed to prove penetration beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Section 6 set aside [Paras 16–17].

POCSO Act – Section 10 read with Section 9(m) – Sexual Assault (Non-penetrative) – Victim’s version corroborated by tuition teacher’s statement about accused touching her inappropriately – Conduct consistent with sexual intent – Conviction under Section 10 sustained [Paras 10, 17–18].

Evidence – Corroboration – Absence of injuries or biological evidence not fatal when non-penetrative assault proved through credible testimony – Victim’s statement sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 10 POCSO [Paras 17–18].

Defence – Motive of False Implication – Alleged financial dispute between accused and victim’s father found unsubstantiated – Father (examined as DW-2) denied existence of such dispute – Plea rejected [Paras 14–15].

Sentence – Modification – Appellant sentenced to RI 12 years (Section 6), 5 years (Section 10), and 1 year (Section 506 IPC) by trial court – Having undergone more than six and a half years, sentence under Section 10 deemed served – Appellant directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Conviction under Section 6 read with Section 5(l) & (m) POCSO set aside – Conviction under Section 10 read with Section 9(m) POCSO upheld – Appellant released as sentence already undergone – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 18–20].

Property Law – Permanent Injunction – Co-sharer plea – Adverse inference – Concurrent findings – Suit land 32 marlas marked ABCD – Trial Court decreed injunction on possession; First Appellate Court affirmed – Defendant’s belated co-sharer argument inapplicable as he never pleaded joint status and instead set up exclusive claims (7 marlas with himself, 25 marlas with sister) – Non-appearance of defendant warranted adverse inference – No substantial question of law – Appeal dismissed [Paras 4, 7–13].

Pleadings and Burden – Co-sharer principle not attracted – Legal proposition that one co-sharer cannot injunct another is undisputed, but inapplicable where the defendant’s own pleadings deny jointness and assert exclusive titles in defined portions – Court declines to permit a case beyond pleadings [Paras 8–9].

Evidence – Family partition and possession – First Appellate Court recorded that partition stood admitted even by defence witnesses – Sister (alleged owner of 25 marlas) residing in another village since 1947; no possession proved – Defendant did not enter the witness box; son (DW2) lacked personal knowledge of partition or identification of the alleged 7 marlas – Defence testimony inconsistent and unreliable [Para 10].

Adverse Inference – Non-appearance of a party – Adverse inference against the defendant for not stepping into the witness box, consistent with Prem Sagar v. Darbari Lal and Sardari Lal v. Kartar Singh – Defendant failed to substantiate title or possession; plaintiff’s possession proved – Decrees sustained [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Concurrent injunction in favour of the plaintiff maintained [Para 13].

Motor Accident – Head-on Collision – Negligence – Apportionment of Liability – Accident on 28.11.2017 between WagonR (DL-03CR-6768) and Truck (AS-14C-0806) resulting in death of Om Prakash Sah – Tribunal held WagonR driver negligent based on MVI reports and directed United India Insurance Co. (insurer of WagonR) to pay compensation of ₹10,00,150/- – Held: Tribunal erred in relying solely on unproved MVI reports and hearsay evidence without examining MVI or investigator – Charge sheet filed against Truck driver and eye-witness (CW-2) supported negligence of Truck – Liability to be apportioned between both insurers [Paras 8–16, 28].

Evidence – Proof of Negligence – Standard of Proof – Tribunal misread evidence and ignored charge sheet and eye-witness testimony – Strict rules of evidence not applicable in motor accident cases – Negligence to be determined on preponderance of probabilities – Reference made to Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corp., (2009) 13 SCC 530; Kaushnumma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 421 (SC); Rajwati v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1699 [Paras 12–14].

Procedure – Remand – Power under Order XLI Rules 23 & 23A CPC – Appellant sought remand to Tribunal – Court held no condition for remand satisfied; relied on P. Purushottam Reddy v. Pratap Steels Ltd., (2002) SC – Decided matter on merits to avoid prolonging litigation [Paras 17–18].

Compensation – Determination and Enhancement – Deceased aged 48 years, income ₹7,950/- per month (minimum wage) – Tribunal failed to add future prospects – High Court recalculated applying Pranay Sethi (25% addition for self-employed aged 40–50) and Sarla Verma (multiplier 13, ¼ deduction) – Also applied Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 to award ₹48,000/- each for five dependants as filial consortium, ₹18,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate (10% enhancement twice) – Total compensation ₹14,56,216/- with 9% interest p.a. [Paras 20–26, 29].

Interest and Deposit Directions – Respondents directed to deposit respective shares of compensation before Tribunal within 30 days – ₹10,00,000/- to be kept in fixed deposit for 5 years in claimant’s name; withdrawal only with leave of Tribunal – Interest @9% per annum from date of filing claim till realization, following Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association, (2011) 14 SCC 481 [Paras 29–31].

Decision – Appeal dismissed on merits but award modified – Compensation enhanced from ₹10,00,150/- to ₹14,56,216/- with interest @9% p.a. – Liability apportioned between both insurers (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) equally – No costs [Paras 27–32].

Senior Citizens Act – Section 23 – Cancellation of Transfer Deed – Conditions breached – Petitioner (grandfather) sought cancellation of transfer deed citing failure of transferee to maintain him as required under deed – Tribunal initially cancelled deed but appellate authority remanded case – Upon rehearing, Tribunal denied cancellation and instead granted monthly maintenance of ₹24,000 to be paid by all three respondents – Held: Petitioner’s pleadings vague and lacking specific proof of refusal to maintain by Respondent No.5 – No evidence to show Respondent No.5 breached conditions – Tribunal correctly refused to cancel deed [Paras 3, 12–13].

Misuse of Welfare Law – Family property dispute cloaked as senior citizen welfare issue – Court noted coordinated stand of Respondents Nos.3 & 4 to not pay maintenance and admit lack of possession/income – Found that application was used as tool to settle property dispute among family members under the guise of senior citizen welfare – Held: This practice of using Section 23 for collateral purposes must be deprecated [Paras 6, 10, 13].

Voluntary Reversion of Property – Deed cancelled only to the extent admitted by transferees – Respondents Nos.3 & 4 voluntarily expressed willingness to relinquish land – Court allowed cancellation of transfer only as to their share – Respondent No.5’s share maintained – He directed to continue paying maintenance of ₹8,000/month as per Tribunal’s order – Welfare of petitioner thus adequately protected [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No interference warranted – Transfer deed partially cancelled to extent of shares held by Respondents Nos.3 & 4 – Respondent No.5 to retain his share and continue maintenance obligation of ₹8,000 per month – Petitioner’s welfare sufficiently secured [Paras 14–16].

Hindu Law – Inheritance – Applicability of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Married Daughter’s Right – Plaintiff sought declaration of title and partition of ancestral property inherited by her brother after their father's death – Both Courts below found that father died in 1950-51, prior to enactment of 1956 Act – Held: Succession opened under pre-1956 Mitakshara law which excluded daughters when a male heir existed – Plaintiff had no enforceable right under prevailing law at the time – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12, 19-21, 26, 30-31]

Hindu Law – Mitakshara Succession – Male Lineal Descent – Property inherited from paternal ancestors treated as coparcenary property under Mitakshara law – Sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons acquire rights by birth – Female heirs could inherit only in absence of male issue – Defendant’s succession to entire estate held valid – Plaintiff’s claim without merit [Paras 19, 26-30]

Statutory Interpretation – Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 – Limited Scope – Act merely ranked certain female heirs in succession after paternal grandfather and before paternal uncle – Did not override Mitakshara principles or grant equal rights to daughters where male heirs existed – Plaintiff not entitled under 1929 Act either [Paras 23-25, 27-28]

Widow’s Possession – Section 14, Hindu Succession Act – No evidence led to show possession of property by widow after husband’s death – In absence of possession, limited estate could not convert into absolute right – Plaintiff failed to establish succession through mother – Mutation in favour of defendants upheld [Para 14, 30]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No right of inheritance accrued to plaintiff under Mitakshara law – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 not applicable due to ancestor’s death prior to its commencement – Property validly devolved upon male heir – No error in concurrent findings of lower courts – No costs awarded.

Civil Law – Decree Based on Family Settlement – Validity – Decree dated 14.01.1983 allegedly obtained by appellants Satpal and Mohinder Singh against Sukh Ram on basis of family settlement – Courts below held Sukh Ram was not related to appellants and had not suffered decree – Fingerprint expert evidence showed thumb impressions on court record did not match Sukh Ram’s – Held: Decree obtained by impersonation and fraud – Decree unregistered and not based on pre-existing right – Invalid and not binding – Findings of both courts affirmed [Paras 16–16.1].

Revenue Records – Possession – Change in Khasra Girdwari Without Notice – Appellant Lakhmi claimed possession based on revenue entries – First Appellate Court reversed Trial Court and held entries invalid as made without notice to Sukh Ram – Held: Change in revenue records without due process has no legal sanctity – Possession of Lakhmi not established – Sukh Ram rightly held to be in possession of suit land – Declaration and injunction decrees upheld [Paras 17–18].

Punjab Courts Act – No Substantial Question of Law – Second appeal under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act does not require formulation of substantial question of law as under Section 100 CPC – Held: Findings of fact by lower courts based on cogent reasoning and evidence – Appeals dismissed on merits [Paras 15, 18.1].

Contempt of Court – Alleged Violation of Status Quo Order – Petitioners claimed respondents violated status quo order by executing sale deed and forcibly taking possession – Held: Petitioners failed to show they were in possession – Allegations vague and lacking specific dates or details – No deliberate or willful disobedience shown – Contempt petition dismissed as misconceived [Paras 18.2–19].

Decision: All four Regular Second Appeals dismissed – Findings of lower courts regarding invalidity of decree and absence of lawful possession affirmed – Contempt petition (COCP-1620-2008) dismissed as vague and lacking merit – All pending applications also disposed of – Judgment to be placed on record of all connected files.

Criminal Law - Motor Vehicle Accident – Negligence – No Direct Evidence – Conviction Set Aside – Accused was convicted by Trial and Appellate Courts for rash and negligent driving causing injuries – Revisional Court held that prosecution failed to prove rashness or negligence – Injury location inconsistent with prosecution's version of accident – Conviction under Sections 279 and 338 IPC set aside [Paras 18–24, 29–37, 40].

Evidence – Contradictions – Prosecution version that victim was hit from behind contradicted by injury on her left leg – Witnesses’ testimony regarding “high speed” insufficient without specific elaboration – Statements of negligence by witnesses held inadmissible as opinion, not fact – Witnesses’ conclusions disregarded [Paras 19–26, 34–36].

High Speed – Not Per Se Negligent – Speed alone not determinative of rashness – No evidence of reckless driving or breach of duty – Court cited State of Karnataka v. Satish and Mohanta Lal v. State of W.B. to reaffirm that “high speed” must be contextualised – Mere speed cannot establish guilt [Paras 24–26].

Licensing – Driving Without License – Conviction Upheld – Accused admitted to not holding a valid driving license – Held: Though not evidence of negligence, driving without license validly attracts Section 181 of M.V. Act – Sentence of ₹500 fine upheld as reasonable [Paras 31–33, 38].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Concurrent Findings – Revisional Court reiterated that it cannot act as a second appellate court – Interference only when findings are perverse or based on no evidence – Court relied on Malkeet Singh Gill, Dilipsinh Rao, Kishan Rao and others to set out settled law on revisional powers [Paras 13–17].

Decision: Revision Petition Partly Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 279 and 338 IPC set aside – Conviction and fine of ₹500 under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act upheld [Paras 40–42].