Panchayati Raj - Notice for Gram Sabha Meetings – Appeal challenging resolution passed by Gram Sabha without giving seven days' clear notice – Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department upheld resolution – Single Judge dismissed writ petition – Held, participation without objection to improper notice deems mandatory notice requirement waived – Resolution upheld – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Legal Principles on Notice Requirements – Analysis – Statutory seven days' notice required for Gram Sabha meetings under Section 23 of the 1994 Act – Waiver principle applies if affected parties participate without raising objections – Subsequent resolution amended initial resolution, removing technicalities. [Paras 2, 14-15]

Competency of Gram Panchayat – Authority to change use of reserved land requires Government approval – Resolution for allotment of plots to landless workers as per policy dated 17.04.2001 upheld – Procedural compliance and policy adherence validated. [Paras 13, 16-17]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to earlier decisions affirming waiver of notice requirement if no objection is raised – Validity of resolutions passed with participation upheld. [Para 15]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Resolution passed with due quorum and subsequent amendment upheld – No infirmity in Single Judge’s order – Appeal devoid of merit, dismissed. [Paras 18-19]

Criminal Law - Sentencing - Probation – Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Respondent-accused released on probation for one year – Petitioner challenged the release on probation and sought compensation – Held, law extends indulgence to first-time offenders for non-heinous crimes – Reformative theory of sentencing emphasized – Courts must balance punitive and reformative aspects – Conviction upheld but probation granted considering no previous conviction and the nature of the offense – Revision petition dismissed. [Paras 1-14]

Reformative Theory of Sentencing – Analysis – Courts guided by principles laid down by the Supreme Court – Focus on reform and rehabilitation for first-time offenders – Factors considered include nature of the offense, background of the offender, and potential for reform – Sentencing must also consider societal interests and deterrence. [Paras 7-14]

Judicial Discretion in Sentencing – Held – Courts have broad discretion in sentencing but must exercise it judiciously – Sentencing decisions must be based on comprehensive assessment of various factors – In absence of legal errors or misuse of discretion, appellate courts should not interfere with lower court's decisions on probation. [Paras 8, 10, 11, 13]

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – No illegality, infirmity, or perversity found in the lower courts’ judgments – Probation appropriately granted – Revision petition against probation and compensation order dismissed. [Paras 13-14]

Service Law - Dismissal of Teacher - Allegations of Sexual Harassment – Writ Petition – Lecturer dismissed on charges of sexually exploiting female students – Regular departmental inquiry conducted by a retired Judicial Officer – No violation of natural justice found – Court upholds findings of disciplinary authorities – Sexual harassment by teacher condemned – Writ petition dismissed to protect the dignity of female students. [Paras 1-25]

Sexual Harassment and Natural Justice – Analysis – Held – Court adopts practical approach over technicalities – Detailed inquiry and multiple fact-finding reports substantiate charges – Teacher exploiting female students in educational setting highly condemnable – Allegations sufficiently proven – No reason to interfere with findings of inquiry officer or disciplinary authority. [Paras 23-25]

Decision – Dismissal Upheld – Petition dismissed – Teacher’s misconduct established through thorough inquiry – Protection of students’ dignity prioritized – No relief granted to petitioner. [Paras 25]

Service Law - Regularization of Non-Teaching Staff – Letters Patent Appeal – Non-teaching staff of PICTES sought regularization akin to teaching staff – Single Judge granted regularization and pay scale difference for 38 months – Government's denial based on financial constraints found arbitrary and discriminatory – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 1-16]

Equal Treatment – Analysis – Held – Denial of regularization to non-teaching staff when extended to teaching staff in the same department violates Article 14 – Government's argument of financial burden rejected – Instructions and decisions indicate non-teaching staff's demand was genuine and approved at higher levels – Discriminatory action not sustainable. [Paras 15-16]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Court upholds Single Judge's order for regularization of non-teaching staff – Decision to deny benefits based on untenable grounds – Appeals dismissed, civil miscellaneous applications disposed of. [Paras 16]

Landlord and Tenant Law - Perpetual Lease and Eviction – Revision petition challenging the maintainability of an eviction petition filed by a perpetual lessee – Held, perpetual lessee with rights akin to ownership can maintain an eviction petition under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 – Perpetual lease agreement confers rights similar to ownership, entitling lessee to seek eviction – Tenant’s petition dismissed. [Paras 1-3.16]

Rights of Perpetual Lessee – Analysis – Perpetual lease confers rights similar to ownership, including the right to receive rent and manage the property – Such lessee cannot be considered a mere tenant under Section 2(h) of the 1973 Act – Entitled to maintain eviction proceedings as landlord. [Paras 3.6-3.8]

Definition of Landlord and Tenant – Held – Landlord includes any person entitled to receive rent, whether on his own account or on behalf of others – Tenant defined expansively, excludes certain categories – Respondent, as perpetual lessee, falls within the definition of landlord, not tenant. [Paras 3.7-3.8]

Judicial Precedents – Consideration – Reference to Division Bench judgment in Paramjit Singh Walia vs. Jagdish Mitter and Supreme Court judgment in Sushil Kumar Mehta vs. Govind Ram Bohara – Upheld the right of perpetual lessee to initiate eviction proceedings. [Para 3.5, 3.9]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Perpetual lessee entitled to maintain eviction petition – No merit in tenant’s arguments – Findings of bona fide necessity of landlord upheld – Limited scope of revisional jurisdiction noted – Petition dismissed. [Paras 3.10-3.16]

Constitutional Law - Regularization of Non-Teaching Staff - Appeal against order for regularization and pay difference - Non-teaching staff denied regularization while teaching staff benefitted - Held, denial arbitrary and discriminatory - Regularization upheld based on parity and Article 14 of the Constitution - Government's decision arbitrary, not sustainable. [Paras 15-16]

Regularization Policy - Applicability to Non-Teaching Staff - Analysis - Proposal for regularizing non-teaching staff initially accepted - Later denied citing lack of funds - Non-teaching staff's demand found genuine - Finance Department's rejection on financial grounds dismissed as untenable - Regularization parity required between teaching and non-teaching staff. [Paras 10, 13]

Delay in Filing Appeal - Application for condoning 274-day delay in filing appeal accepted - Delay attributed to procedural steps and internal decisions - Sufficient cause shown for condonation. [Paras 1-4]

Decision - Regularization and Pay Difference Entitlement Upheld - Appeals dismissed - Regularization of non-teaching staff and pay difference for 38 months upheld - Decision of writ court affirmed - All pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. [Paras 15-16]

Personal Security - Withdrawal of Security Cover – Appeal – Decorated police officer's security cover withdrawn by state – Court finds no vested right to personal security – Individual must demonstrate real and genuine threat, not mere apprehension – State’s assessment of threat perception upheld in absence of reliable contrary evidence – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-14]

Security Cover Assessment – Analysis – Held – Real and not merely perceived threat necessary for personal security cover – Competent authority’s satisfaction on threat abatement pivotal – Limited public resources cannot be used to display eminence or bolster ego – Court cannot substitute its judgment for state’s threat assessment. [Paras 10-11]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Court upholds withdrawal of security cover – No error in Single Judge’s order – Recognizes past exemplary services but finds no current threat warranting security at state expense – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 12-14]

Negotiable Instruments Act - Legally Enforceable Liability – Appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Cheques issued for work not executed – Cheque not against legally enforceable debt – Acquittal by Trial Court upheld – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-16]

Burden of Proof – Analysis – Burden on appellant-complainant to establish that work was performed against the order for which the cheque was issued – Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 rebutted by respondent-accused – Evidence showed cheques issued for same work due to incomplete execution after first work order – Second cheque issued after assurance to complete work – Acquittal upheld. [Paras 11, 14]

Judicial Approach – Interference in Acquittal – Scope of High Court's interference in acquittal limited – Presumption of innocence reinforced by acquittal – Interference warranted only for substantial and compelling reasons – No perverse findings or mis-appreciation of evidence by Trial Court – Acquittal upheld. [Paras 12-13]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No evidence of legally enforceable debt – Trial Court's judgment affirmed – Appeal lacks merit, dismissed. [Paras 15-16]

Judicial Service - Eligibility Criteria – Petition seeking relaxation of Rule 11(1)(bb) of the Haryana Superior Judicial Services Rules, 2007 – Petitioner working as Assistant District Attorney, unable to fulfill requirement of independent engagement and conducting of cases – Held, Rule requires practical court experience and cannot be relaxed – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-13]

Requirements for Judicial Appointments – Analysis – Rule 11(1)(bb) mandates independent engagement and conduct of cases for reserved category candidates – Petitioner, due to his role as Assistant District Attorney, lacks requisite independent practice – Judicial appointments require practical experience, intelligence, and problem-solving skills developed through court appearances. [Paras 8-12]

Principle of Non-Relaxation – Rules intended to ensure mature and trained judicial minds – Relaxation cannot undermine the rule’s purpose – No relaxation granted if it frustrates the objective of the rules – Petitioner's request for relaxation denied as it contravenes the rule’s intent. [Paras 10-12]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Requirement for independent engagement and conducting of cases upheld – Relaxation not permissible as it would defeat the rule’s purpose – Petition dismissed due to lack of merit. [Paras 12-13]