Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Kalendra – Initiation of Proceedings – Petition challenging the initiation of proceedings by SHO for offences under Section 211 IPC. Held: The initiation by SHO violates mandatory provisions of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C., rendering the prosecution and consequent proceedings void. Presentation of Kalendra barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Petition allowed. [Paras 1-18]

Prosecution Bar – Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Section 195 Cr.P.C. mandates that for offences under Sections 193-196, 199, 200, 205-211, and 228 IPC related to court proceedings, a written complaint by the concerned court or an authorized officer is required. The initiation by the SHO without a court complaint is invalid, making the proceedings void. [Paras 7-13]

Limitation Period – Section 468 Cr.P.C. – The offence under Section 182 IPC, punishable by up to six months, has a one-year limitation period for taking cognizance. The Kalendra was presented more than three years after the alleged offence, making it time-barred. [Paras 14-15]

Decision – Quashing of Kalendra – The Court quashed the Kalendra and the summoning order due to non-compliance with Section 195 Cr.P.C. and the bar of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. [Paras 16-17]

Family Pension - Right Under Statutory Rules – Deemed Option – The petitioner, whose husband died on 01.04.1994 while in service with the Municipal Council, Moga, was entitled to family pension under the Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994 – The petitioner’s husband did not exercise the option within the stipulated four months from the publication of the rules on 16.03.1994 – As per Rule 3(1)(c), he is deemed to have opted for the pension scheme – The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to family pension by virtue of the deeming clause. [Paras 1-14]

Application of Municipal Council Rules vs. Municipal Corporation Rules – The respondents applied the Punjab Municipal Corporation Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994, which were not applicable as the husband of the petitioner was governed by the Municipal Council rules – The impugned order was set aside as it was based on the wrong set of rules. [Paras 11-13]

Decision – Quashing of Impugned Order and Grant of Family Pension – The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondent corporation to grant family pension to the petitioner from the date of her husband’s death – The petitioner was also directed to deposit the employer’s share of CPF with interest, and the respondents were instructed to pay arrears of pension along with 8% interest per annum – Costs of Rs. 20,000 were awarded to the petitioner. [Paras 14-17]

Eviction Orders – Jurisdictional Competence – Commissioner’s Role – The petitioner sought quashing of eviction orders issued by the Assistant Collector and upheld by the Commissioner and appellate authorities – The Court held that the Commissioner does not have jurisdictional competence to entertain an appeal if the Assistant Collector did not adjudicate upon the question of title under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – The Commissioner can only entertain a revision where the Assistant Collector has formed an opinion on the question of title – Orders passed by the Commissioner without jurisdiction are a nullity. [Paras 1-7]

Maintainability of Revision – Limited Scope – Revision before the Commissioner is maintainable only if the Assistant Collector has addressed the question of title – In cases where the Assistant Collector passes a simple eviction order without addressing the title, the Commissioner cannot entertain an appeal or revision. [Para 5]

Decision – Quashing of Orders and Upholding Appellate Authority’s Order – The Court quashed the impugned orders dated 11.06.2014, 11.07.2013, and 27.02.2009, and upheld the order dated 25.08.2009 passed by the first appellate authority – The initial order by the Commissioner was deemed a nullity, rendering subsequent orders void. [Para 7]

Arms Act – Rejection of Arms License Application – Non-Speaking Order – Writ petition challenging the rejection of an arms license application and the dismissal of the appeal. The rejection was based on the petitioner’s involvement in FIRs, but the order was a pre-printed proforma with mere blanks filled and lacked reasons. Held: Section 17(5) of the Arms Act, 1959, mandates that reasons must be recorded in writing for varying conditions, suspending, or revoking a license. The impugned orders were set aside due to non-compliance with Section 17(5) and principles of natural justice. Matter remanded for fresh decision. [Paras 1-8]

Non-Application of Mind – Quasi-Judicial Authority – The Court found that the licensing authority’s use of a pre-printed form with blanks filled indicated non-application of mind and non-compliance with statutory requirements. Quasi-judicial authorities must record reasons for their decisions, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice and statutory obligations under the Arms Act. [Paras 7-8]

Decision – Remand for Fresh Consideration – The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the licensing authority to decide the application afresh, emphasizing the need for a reasoned and speaking order. [Para 8]

Service Law – Pay and Allowances During Probation – Notification Quashed – Writ petitions challenged notifications and clarifications issued by the State of Punjab, which stipulated that only traveling allowance would be paid during the probation period, and that the probation period would not count towards the time scale applicable to the post – Held, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" must be applied without discrimination among employees – Plea of financial constraints cannot be selectively applied – Notifications and conditions in appointment letters quashed – Petitioners entitled to regular pay scale and other emoluments from the date of initial appointment. [Paras 1-45]

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Financial Constraints – Analysis – The Court rejected the State's plea of financial constraints for not granting full pay and allowances during probation to certain categories of employees while others received such benefits – The principle of "equal pay for equal work" was emphasized, and financial constraints cannot justify unequal treatment among employees. [Paras 38-40]

Decision – Quashing of Notifications and Conditions in Appointment Letters – The Court quashed the notifications and conditions in appointment letters that restricted pay and allowances during the probation period and excluded the probation period from the time scale applicable to the post – Petitioners were directed to be granted regular pay scale and all emoluments from the date of their initial appointment. [Para 45]

Constitutional Law - Appointment of Lambardar – Civil Writ Petition – Quashing of Order – Petitioner sought quashing of Financial Commissioner's order which set aside the Divisional Commissioner's decision and restored the Collector's order appointing Respondent No.4 as Lambardar. Held: The choice of the Collector cannot be lightly interfered with unless there is some perversity or illegality in the order of the Collector. The Collector had duly considered the comparative merits of all candidates. No perversity or illegality was found in the order of the Collector. Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-12]

Judicial Review – Role of Collector – The Court emphasized that the choice of the District Collector in appointing Lambardar should not be interfered with unless there is a clear perversity or illegality. The Divisional Commissioner’s order was found to be in violation of this principle as there was no substantive finding of perversity or illegality in the Collector’s order. [Para 6]

Age and Comparative Merits – Analysis – The Court noted that the Collector had evaluated the candidates based on various factors, including age, recommendations from lower revenue officers, and community support. The respondent, being younger and supported by local authorities, was deemed more suitable despite having lesser educational qualifications than the petitioner. [Paras 2, 8, 9]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – The petition was dismissed, upholding the order of the Financial Commissioner which reinstated the Collector's decision. The Divisional Commissioner's re-evaluation was found unwarranted as no illegality or perversity was established in the original appointment order. [Paras 11-12]

Village Common Lands – Jurisdiction – Collusive Transfer – Petition challenging the award passed by the Daily Lok Adalat, Hisar, which approved the exchange of Panchayat land with private land. The exchange was done without the approval of the State Government and without any resolution indicating the benefit to the village inhabitants. Held, the award by the Daily Lok Adalat is beyond its jurisdiction and thus, a nullity. Civil Court has no jurisdiction under Section 13 of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 to entertain such claims. Petition allowed, and the impugned award quashed. [Paras 1-10]

Land Exchange – Approval Requirement – Exchange of Gram Panchayat land requires prior approval from the State Government and must be for the benefit of the village inhabitants. Held, the Gram Panchayat resolution did not provide any plausible reasons showing the exchange's benefit to the village. The exchange was done in violation of Rule 5 of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. [Paras 3-6]

Decision:

Petition allowed. The impugned award dated 15.11.2013 passed by the Daily Lok Adalat, Hisar is quashed. A copy of this order is to be sent to the Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Development and Panchayats, Haryana, Chandigarh for issuing necessary instructions to prevent future collusive transfers of Panchayat land through civil court decrees. [Paras 9-10]

Service Law – Dismissal from Service – Natural Justice – Writ petition challenging dismissal from service for alleged bribery – Personal hearing conducted by a different officer than the one who passed the final order – Held, principles of natural justice mandate that the officer who hears must also decide – Successor officer had no occasion to hear the petitioner – Impugned order quashed – Matter remanded for fresh consideration by disciplinary authority. [Paras 1-8]

Principles of Natural Justice – Hearing and Decision by Same Officer – Held – Personal hearing becomes an empty formality if the officer hearing the case is different from the one deciding it – Essential feature of natural justice requires the same officer to both hear and decide – Hearing by one officer and decision by another invalidates the order. [Para 7]

Decision – Order Quashed and Remanded – Impugned dismissal order quashed – Case remitted to disciplinary authority for fresh order after hearing – Fresh order to comply with Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016 – Order of reinstatement kept in abeyance pending fresh consideration. [Para 8]

Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Invocation of powers - Scope and ambit - The court invoked its powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the applicant to face trial based on evidence that indicated her complicity in the offense - The court clarified that the evidence considered for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. is the material collected during the inquiry or trial and not the material collected during the investigation by the investigating agency.

Prosecution of women for rape - Amended provisions of IPC - While Section 375 IPC specifically states that only a man can commit the offense of rape, the amended Section 376-D IPC provides for a distinct offense of gang rape, where one or more persons acting in furtherance of a common intention commit the offense - The court clarified that a woman cannot commit rape as defined under Section 375 IPC, but she can be prosecuted for gang rape if she facilitates the act with a group of people.

Principle of joint liability - Section 376-D IPC - In cases of gang rape, if rape has been committed by one person in a group, all the accused will be guilty due to the principle of joint liability - The court emphasized that common intention and criminal sharing among the offenders must be established, and the term "person" in Section 376-D IPC should not be construed narrowly.

Judgment - No interference in the impugned order - The court concluded that there is no scope for interference in the impugned order, as the evidence and the provisions of law support the summoning of the applicant to face trial for the offense of gang rape - application filed by the applicant was dismissed. (Para No. 8, 11, 12)