Service Law – Refixation of Pay – Retrospective Promotion – Re-option for Pay Revisions – Retired Administrative Assistant granted retrospective promotion to Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 01.11.1971 – Re-option request for 1973, 1978 and 1983 pay revisions rejected as delayed – Tribunal found re-option inadmissible due to absence of retrospective revision in pay scale – However, directed State to implement earlier order granting notional re-fixation of pay (Annexure A2) – Held: Tribunal justified in directing implementation of order already sanctioned but not acted upon [Paras 2, 3, 4, 13, 14]

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court cannot sit in appeal over findings of Tribunal unless order is perverse, patently unreasonable or violates basic principles of justice – Tribunal’s direction found consistent with settled legal principles and not warranting interference – Petition dismissed [Paras 7–12, 14]

Decision: Original Petition dismissed – Tribunal’s direction to implement Annexure A2 upheld – No grounds for interference under Article 227.

Service Law – Terminal Benefits – Gratuity and Provident Fund – Original writ petitioner was the dependent and physically incapacitated brother of deceased Assistant Teacher who died in service – Succession certificate obtained – Court held that even though not a minor, incapacity due to disability qualifies as dependency under Clause 5(s)(1) – Directed authorities to release gratuity and provident fund subject to proof of succession – Held: Petitioner entitled to terminal benefits [Paras 12-15, 17-18]

Family Pension – Scope of Eligibility – Under Clause 5(s)(2) of 1981 Scheme, only spouse, minor children, and dependent parents eligible – Brother and sister-in-law of deceased not included – Family pension claim rejected – No surviving eligible family member after death of mother – Held: Petitioner not entitled to family pension [Paras 13, 16-17]

Administrative Law – Delay and Inaction – Authorities failed to act despite earlier High Court direction in WP 17359(W) of 2017 – Respondents raised unjustified service record queries that petitioner could not answer – Court criticized inaction and directed resolution within eight weeks – Held: Delay caused undue hardship – Respondents to act promptly [Paras 7-9, 18]

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Direction to disburse gratuity and provident fund to substituted petitioner – Prayer for family pension rejected.

Criminal Law – Cheque Dishonour – Appeal Against Acquittal – Appellant/complainant alleged supply of export garments worth ₹24.20 lakhs to accused partnership firm – Two cheques (₹2,37,785/- total) issued by accused were dishonoured for insufficient funds – Trial Court convicted all three accused under Section 138 NI Act – Lower Appellate Court acquitted accused giving benefit of doubt – Held: Evidence produced by both parties self-serving with no proof of exchange or acknowledgment – Ex.P4/P5 invoices, delivery notes, and account statements produced by complainant lacked authentication or proof of service – Cheques bore overwritten dates, weakening reliability – Accused produced documents showing procurement of raw materials and communications with foreign buyers in their own name – Evidence revealed disputed commercial relationship and lack of clarity on liability – In criminal trial, benefit of doubt must go to accused – Appellate Court’s reversal not perverse or unreasonable – No ground to interfere under limited scope of appeal against acquittal [Paras 7–10].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused under Section 138 NI Act confirmed – No interference warranted with judgment of First Appellate Court.

Banking Law – Guarantee and Mortgage by Power Agent – Co-extensive Liability – Power of Attorney – Respondent No. 7 executed General Power of Attorney in favour of wife authorising her to mortgage, guarantee and receive consideration – Power agent executed mortgage in favour of Axis Bank to secure loan granted to borrowers (Respondents 1–6) – Upon default, DRT decreed recovery only against borrowers, holding mortgage by power agent as invalid – DRAT confirmed order citing lesser culpability of guarantor and lapses on part of bank – Held: Both Tribunals misread the power of attorney and erred in interpreting its recitals – Power agent had express authority to mortgage, guarantee and bind principal – Findings of DRT and DRAT contrary to Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act which provides for co-extensive liability of guarantor – Power of attorney was not disputed, and its express language authorised the act – Guarantor bound by execution through duly authorised agent – Orders of DRT and DRAT set aside – Claim against guarantor restored [Paras 13–27].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Orders of DRT and DRAT insofar as they dismiss the bank’s claim against the seventh respondent (guarantor) set aside – Axis Bank’s claim against the guarantor allowed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Bank Fraud – Discharge – Opposite Party, a former bank manager, was discharged by Special CBI Court in a case involving ₹9.14 crore loan fraud – CBI challenged discharge, alleging conspiracy and irregularities in loan sanction – Held: Loan was sanctioned by General Manager based on multiple internal reports including technical and appraisal reports – Opposite Party’s role limited to forwarding proposal without sanctioning power – No prima facie evidence of conspiracy against Opposite Party – Discharge justified [Paras 2–11]

Criminal Procedure – Section 239 CrPC – Discharge – Judicial Review – High Court reaffirmed that in absence of specific, substantiated material pointing to active role or mens rea, trial court rightly exercised discretion under Section 239 to prevent harassment – Failure of CBI to reinvestigate, despite court direction, further weakens prosecution’s case – Observed that prosecution proceeded selectively without naming equally involved senior officials – No interference warranted in revisional jurisdiction [Paras 10–12]

Criminal Investigation – Fair Trial – Selective Prosecution – Court noted systemic gaps in investigation, particularly omission of officials in Core Credit Group and higher management who played significant roles – CBI’s omission to include key sanctioning officers in chargesheet despite specific allegations raised in complaint found arbitrary – Cited State of M.P. v. Sheetla Sahai, stressing against pick-and-choose prosecution [Para 11]

Decision: Revisional Application Dismissed – Order of discharge dated 28/11/2014 passed by the Special Judge, CBI Court, Kolkata in Special Case No. 16 of 2010 affirmed – Direction for reinvestigation by Special Judge not complied with – No prima facie case made out against Opposite Party – Allegations of negligence do not establish criminal conspiracy.

Banking Law - Debt Recovery – SARFAESI Proceedings – Maintainability of Writ – Appellant, a Small Enterprise under the MSMED Act, challenged action taken by the Bank under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act citing failure to follow RBI’s rehabilitation guidelines – Contended that Bank could not invoke SARFAESI without exploring rehabilitation under 2015 RBI Notification – High Court held that since the grievance arose from action under Section 13(4), remedy under Section 17 before DRT was available – Writ petition rightly dismissed by Single Judge for availability of alternate remedy [Paras 2, 5–8]

Debt Recovery Tribunal – Jurisdiction under SARFAESI Act – Appellant argued that DRT lacked jurisdiction as the challenge was to the very applicability of SARFAESI – Rejected – Held: Section 17(1) permits any aggrieved person to approach DRT against measures under Section 13(4), including cases where SARFAESI action is alleged to be invalid ab initio – Jurisdiction of DRT not ousted – No fault found with Single Judge’s reasoning [Paras 6–8]

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Writ petition rightly not entertained – Appellant directed to avail remedy before DRT [Para 9]

Criminal Law – Section 21, 25, 29 of NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Bail Rejected – Petitioners, Nigerian nationals, arrested with 500g and 300g heroin respectively, also linked to further recovery of 4 kg of chemical substances used for drug preparation – Involvement in manufacturing process alleged – Held: Recovery falls under ‘commercial quantity’ attracting Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin conditions for bail not satisfied – Bail refused [Paras 2-4, 16-17].

Foreign Nationals – Illegal Entry – Forged Passports – Petitioners unable to prove valid immigration or nationality – Furnished fake accommodation and identity details – No arrival/departure stamps on passports – Attempted to mislead authorities by falsely claiming to be from UK and Singapore – Held: Petitioners are flight-risks and misuse of forged documents warrants continued custody [Paras 11, 19-20].

Constitutional Law – Violation of Article 22(1) – Grounds of arrest not supplied in writing – Petitioners claimed arrest invalid under Constitution and NDPS Act – Held: No prejudice shown due to procedural lapse – As per Supreme Court in Darshan (2025 INSC 979), mere procedural lapses do not ipso facto vitiate arrest or entitle bail [Paras 7, 14-15].

Delay in Trial – Prosecution examined only 2 out of 13 witnesses in over 4 years – Petitioners alleged violation of Article 21 – Held: Liberty must be balanced with public interest – In view of serious charges and bar under Section 37 NDPS Act, delay alone not sufficient ground for bail [Paras 5-6, 18].

Search & Seizure – No Independent Witnesses or Videography – Petitioners challenged validity of recovery – Held: Absence of videography/independent witness not fatal – Police evidence cannot be disbelieved solely on that basis – Cited precedents: Surinder Kumar, Kallu Khan, Ram Swaroop [Paras 8, 12-13].

Decision: Bail applications dismissed – Petitioners to remain in custody – No expression on merits of the case [Paras 20-21].

NDPS Act – Bail – Sections 8, 21, 29 NDPS Act - Commercial Quantity – Procedural Lapses – Bail Granted – Petitioner arrested on 21.04.2023 for alleged possession of 50 bottles of Myberry (Codeine Phosphate) – Co-accused arrested based on petitioner's disclosure – Final report filed on 17.07.2023 – Trial delayed with less than half of 21 witnesses examined – Held: Petitioner in custody for over 2.5 years with no prior criminal history – Material contradictions in prosecution evidence – Mandatory procedural safeguards under NDPS Act found breached – Bail granted on conditions [Paras 1–9, 20]

Criminal Law – Reasonable Grounds under Section 37 NDPS Act – Interpretation – Court clarified that “reasonable grounds” for believing guilt under Section 37 require more than suspicion but less than proof – Held: No cogent evidence to support prima facie guilt of petitioner – Co-accused already granted bail – Petitioner stands on parity – No apprehension of tampering with evidence or absconding [Paras 9–10]

Bail Jurisprudence – Constitutional Safeguards – Liberty vs. Public Interest – Citing Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Siddharam Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra – Court reiterated that bail is the rule, jail the exception – Long incarceration without trial amounts to pre-trial punishment – Denial of bail not justified solely by seriousness of charge in absence of risk of misuse of liberty [Paras 14–19]

Discretion in Grant of Bail – Judicial Principles – Court must consider gravity of offence, likelihood of conviction, potential for interference with justice, and balance individual liberty with societal interest – No blanket rule – Each bail decision must be context-specific and factually grounded [Paras 12–13, 18]

Decision:

Bail granted – Petitioner to be released upon furnishing personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and two sureties of ₹50,000 each from relatives – Subject to compliance with conditions: (a) regular appearance at trial, (b) no tampering with evidence or witnesses, (c) no travel outside UT of J&K without court’s permission, (d) no repetition of offence – Trial court empowered to proceed under Sections 491 and 492 BNSS in case of breach of conditions.

Criminal Law – Cruelty – Section 498-A IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Allegations by wife of physical torture, dowry demand, and attempted strangulation by husband – Delay of one month in lodging complaint not explained contemporaneously – Complainant failed to mention serious allegations like throttling and paternity denial in FIR – Introduced new accusations only during trial – Held: Prosecution failed to establish case beyond reasonable doubt – Serious inconsistencies in dates, medical evidence, and testimonies created doubt as to veracity of prosecution story – Conviction under Section 498-A IPC set aside [Paras 5, 10-12, 22-23, 25]

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – FIR and Medical Evidence Contradictions – FIR alleged head injury from iron rod and bleeding, but medical report did not confirm injury – Doctor admitted she could not confirm source of bleeding or strangulation – Carbon copy of injury report had inconsistent date – Held: Medical evidence failed to corroborate prosecution version – Serious doubt cast on occurrence and severity of assault [Paras 11, 22]

Delay in FIR – Unexplained Inordinate Delay – FIR lodged nearly one month after incident dated 15.02.2010 – Explanation of illness raised only during trial without corroboration – No supporting medical records or witness testimony to justify delay – Held: Inordinate delay unexplained and undermines prosecution case [Paras 9, 24]

Misuse of Section 498-A – Matrimonial Disputes – Multiple Cases Filed by Complainant – All resulted in acquittals – Complaint in present case also contained vague and exaggerated allegations – Held: In light of Supreme Court's caution against misuse of Section 498-A in Dara Laxmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, and Achin Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana, prosecution version required strict scrutiny – No clear prima facie case made out against appellant [Paras 24]

Burden of Proof – Failure to Prove Charges Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, contradictions with documentary evidence, failure to produce Panchayat records or resolution, and no evidence of prior incidents of cruelty – Held: Prosecution failed to discharge burden – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 18-21, 23, 25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 498-A IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Connected applications disposed of – Urgent certified copy to be issued on compliance with formalities.