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.

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.

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.

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.

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against Conviction – Life Imprisonment – Appellants convicted under Section 302/34 IPC for causing death of deceased Kallu by lathi and danda – During pendency of appeal three appellants died and appeal abated against them – Appeal considered only in respect of surviving appellant Bakuni – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1-3, 28].

Evidence Act – Sole Eye-Witness – Related / Interested Witness – Conduct of Witness – P.W.1 Batuni, brother of deceased, claimed to be eye-witness to assault but fled from spot and stayed entire night away without informing police or making any effort to ascertain fate of deceased – Presence at place of occurrence found doubtful – His conduct held unnatural – Testimony not trustworthy for sustaining conviction [Paras 21, 23-24].

Criminal Trial – Last Seen Theory – Failure of Proof – Prosecution case that witness saw only initial assault and not the actual murder – No reliable evidence to establish that appellants were last seen with deceased prior to his death – Held: Last seen circumstance not proved [Paras 21, 27].

Evidence Appreciation – Non-examination of Material Witness – Heera, alleged independent eye-witness present with informant and deceased, not examined by prosecution – No explanation offered – When sole eye-witness unreliable, non-examination of independent witness assumes significance – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution [Paras 25].

Motive – Weak and Inconsistent Evidence – Prosecution alleged old enmity relating to murder of appellants’ father as motive – Informant himself stated that relations were cordial and matrimonial alliance existed between families – No immediate or proximate cause shown – Held: Motive not proved and extremely weak [Paras 26].

Medical and Ocular Evidence – Corroboration – Medical evidence proved homicidal death but did not conclusively link appellant with commission of crime – Ocular version unreliable – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 22, 27-28].

Precedent – Appreciation of Evidence – Supreme Court decision in Hem Raj v. State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SCC 614 applied – When presence of eye-witness doubtful, non-examination of independent witnesses becomes fatal to prosecution case [Para 25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 21.03.1990 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 308 of 1986 set aside – Surviving appellant Bakuni acquitted of offence under Section 302/34 IPC – Directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

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.

Criminal Law – Magistrate’s Direction to Register FIR – Revision – The revisionists challenged the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras directing the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC – High Court held that such an order is interlocutory in nature and not open to revision at the instance of a person against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor process issued – Held: Revision not maintainable in light of Full Bench ruling in Father Thomas vs. State of U.P. [Paras 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10].

Criminal Procedure – Interlocutory Orders – Section 156(3) CrPC – Order passed by Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC directing police to investigate is an interlocutory order – Bar under Section 397(2) CrPC applies – No revision lies against such order – Held: Present revision dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 5, 8, 9, 10, 11].

Binding Precedent – Full Bench Decision – Father Thomas Case – Full Bench held that a direction under Section 156(3) CrPC is not revisable by proposed accused and is interlocutory – Any view contrary to this, including that in Ajay Malviya vs. State of U.P., not good law – Held: Court bound by Full Bench ruling – Present revision not entertainable [Paras 7, 8, 9].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed – Order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing registration of FIR is interlocutory and not revisable at the instance of proposed accused – No merits found in revision petition [Paras 10, 11].

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.