Service Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Rule 9 of Punjab State Electricity Board Employees Punishment and Appeal Regulations, 1971 - Imposition of Penalty Without Dissent or Further Inquiry - The petitioner, a Senior Executive Engineer, was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer, yet the punishing authority imposed a major penalty without recording any reasons or a dissenting note - Held, the action violated the principles of natural justice and the statutory regulations - Orders imposing penalty quashed - Petition allowed. [Paras 10, 12, 13]

Non-Speaking Orders and Adverse Civil Consequences - Requirement for Reasoned Orders - Any order entailing adverse civil consequences must be a self-speaking order justifying the decision taken - The impugned order imposing the penalty was cryptic and non-speaking, lacking the required justification - The appellate order also failed to address the grounds raised in the appeal, rendering it infirm. [Paras 12, 13]

Court’s Reasoning - Procedural Compliance and Fair Hearing - The punishing authority did not follow the procedure outlined in Rule 9(1) and Rule 9(2) of the 1971 Regulations, which mandates recording reasons for any disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's findings or remitting the case for further inquiry - Failure to provide a fair hearing and reasoned order constituted a breach of procedural compliance and fairness. [Paras 10, 11]

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 28.08.2015 and 18.11.2016 imposing the major penalty on the petitioner are quashed. All consequential benefits arising from the quashing of these orders are to be released to the petitioner forthwith. Given the petitioner's superannuation and the admission by the respondent-Corporation that no financial loss was caused, no liberty is granted to proceed afresh in the matter.

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Conflict of Interest – Petitioner challenged the appointment of the arbitrator on grounds of bias and ineligibility under the Seventh Schedule of the Act – Court held that if an arbitrator falls under any category in the Seventh Schedule, he/she becomes de jure unable to perform functions – Grounds raising justifiable doubts as to independence or impartiality to be raised before the arbitrator under Section 13 – In the present case, the Managing Director’s recommendation and the government’s appointment did not violate statutory requirements – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-45].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Held – Sole Arbitrator’s appointment upheld – The Court found no inherent bias or procedural lapses in the arbitrator’s appointment – Reaffirmed the role of the government in appointing an arbitrator as per the agreement, independent of the Managing Director’s recommendation [Paras 44-46].

Criminal Law - Medical Negligence - Quashing of Criminal Complaint and Summoning Order –Criminal Appeal against summoning order for offense under Section 304-A IPC – Allegation of medical negligence against appellant in the treatment of respondent's wife – Contention that summoning order was passed without obtaining necessary medical opinion from a government doctor as mandated by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew’s case – Held, summoning order set aside – Directions issued for the constitution of a Medical Board to determine negligence. [Paras 1-25]

Compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines – Analysis –Held – Both the lower courts failed to follow the Supreme Court's mandate in Jacob Mathew's case, which requires obtaining a prima facie medical opinion from a government doctor before initiating criminal proceedings in medical negligence cases – Absence of such compliance necessitated the quashing of the summoning order. [Para 26]

Role of Expert Medical Opinion –Held – The necessity of obtaining an expert medical opinion prior to summoning is crucial to avoid frivolous prosecutions and ensure a fair trial – The Medical Board's assessment will provide an impartial evaluation of the alleged negligence. [Para 19-21]

Decision – Quashing of Summoning Order –The summoning order against Dr. Kamal Jeet Singh is set aside due to non-compliance with the prerequisite of expert medical opinion – Case remanded for the constitution of a Medical Board to assess the alleged negligence and report within a specified timeframe – Fresh order to be passed by JMIC based on the Medical Board's findings. [Para 26-28]

NDPS Act – Compliance of Mandatory Provisions – Investigation lapses leading to bail and acquittals – Issuance of guidelines for investigating officers – Court found that non-compliance with provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act often results in faulty investigations, allowing accused to secure bail and eventual acquittal – Guidelines issued for adherence to statutory requirements to ensure fair and impartial investigations – Instructions for preparing and circulating guidelines and checklist in PDF format for ready reference by investigating officers [Paras 1-20].

Decision – Petitions Disposed of – Held – Interim bail granted to petitioners made absolute due to investigation lapses – Directed preparation and circulation of guidelines and directory checklist to all investigating officers – Failure to comply with directions will result in revival of petitions for action against senior police officials [Paras 17-20].

Constitutional Law - Right to Life - Article 21 - Stray Cattle Menace - State's Duty of Care - Victim severely injured by a stray bull, leading to 90% permanent disability and eventual death - Court held the State responsible for failure to protect life, mandated by Article 21 - Compensation awarded to the victim's family assessed under Motor Vehicles Act principles. [Paras 17, 22, 25, 26]

Municipal Law - Duty to Manage Stray Animals - Punjab Municipal Bye-laws and Haryana Municipal Bye-laws - State and municipal bodies obligated to manage and control stray animals to prevent harm to citizens - Failure to do so results in liability for compensation - Comprehensive measures and policies directed to prevent future incidents. [Paras 23, 24, 36, 37]

Court's Reasoning - Unchallenged Evidence and Negligence - Medical and police records substantiated the claim - State's negligence established by lack of proactive measures against stray animal menace - Protective and compensatory duties highlighted. [Paras 17, 18, 19, 23, 24]

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed. The State of Punjab and its municipal authorities are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 29,32,000 with interest at 6% per annum from September 1, 2012, till payment. Compensation to be shared as follows:

Smt. Nisha (wife): 50%

Mohit Garg (son): 25%

Akshika (daughter): 25%

Mandamus Issued:

States of Punjab and Haryana to implement specific measures under their respective bye-laws to control stray animals and prevent incidents.

Local Governments to designate officials for seizing and managing stray animals, ensuring proper facilities and preventive actions.

UT Chandigarh to take similar measures until specific bye-laws are framed.

Criminal Law - Procedural Compliance under NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act –Search and Seizure Requirements – Appellants charged and tried under Sections 21(c) and 8(c) of the NDPS Act – Conviction and sentence of 14 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs each challenged – Defence contended non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act – Held that non-compliance with Section 42 does not vitiate the trial if no prejudice is caused to the accused – Recovery was from the bag, thus Section 50 not applicable. [Paras 1-25]

Role of Compliance in Emergent Situations – Analysis –Held – In emergent situations where immediate action is necessary, the requirement to record information and notify superior officers under Section 42 can be postponed – Compliance is considered sufficient if the information is recorded and conveyed after the search – The urgency and practicality of the situation are critical factors. [Para 18]

Search of Bag Not Requiring Section 50 Compliance –Held – The search and recovery from the bag carried by the appellants do not necessitate compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which is mandatory only for personal searches – Division Bench relied on SC decisions affirming this principle. [Paras 21-22]

Decision – Conviction and Sentencing Upheld –The Court upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellants, confirming that there was substantial compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act and no prejudice was caused – Appeal dismissed. [Para 24-25]

Contract Law – Tender Process – Petitioner challenged the rejection of its technical bid on the grounds of non-compliance with RFB requirements – High Court held that the Tendering Authority must adhere strictly to the terms and conditions set out in the bid document – Mandamus to apply external guidelines (MoRTH RFP) not permissible – Decision of Tendering Authority to reject non-compliant bids upheld [Paras 1-36].

Judicial Review – Scope – Emphasis on limited scope of judicial intervention in commercial transactions – Court reaffirmed principles of restraint and deference to expertise of tendering authorities – Judicial review applicable only in cases of arbitrariness, mala fide, or public interest [Paras 29, 52-56].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Held – No arbitrariness or unfairness in the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid – Court declined to interfere in the tendering process, affirming that the evaluation was in accordance with the established terms and conditions [Paras 62-63].

Motor Vehicles Act - Entitlement to Compensation - Sections 140, 160, 166(1)(c) - Legal representatives' right to claim compensation under Section 166(1)(c) not dependent on proving financial dependency - Tribunal's dismissal of nephews' claim petition on grounds of non-dependency overturned - Held, legal representatives, including those not financially dependent, are entitled to compensation, but must prove the extent of entitlement. [Paras 9, 10, 17, 19, 20]

Dependency and Compensation - Legal Representatives - The definition of 'legal representative' under Section 2(11) of the CPC includes a broader category beyond immediate dependents - Legal representatives entitled to compensation even without proving financial dependency, but compensation limited to statutory amount under Section 140 in absence of dependency - Nephews of the deceased entitled to Rs. 50,000. [Paras 10, 17, 19, 20, 21]

Court's Reasoning - Right to Apply vs. Entitlement - Distinction between the right to apply for compensation and entitlement to compensation - Legal representatives can file a claim, but compensation for loss of dependency requires proof of financial contribution - Supreme Court precedents support awarding statutory compensation in absence of dependency. [Paras 13, 19, 20]

Decision:

The appeal is partly allowed. The claimants, being nephews of the deceased, are entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, despite not proving financial dependency. The dismissal of their claim petition by the Tribunal is modified accordingly.

Stamp Duty – Assessment of Market Value – Petitioner challenged the orders directing him to pay deficient stamp duty and registration fee – Contention that property sale was complete in 2005 and should not be assessed at 2013 market rates – High Court held Collector’s order to be mechanical and without proper enquiry – Appeal dismissed without reasoning – Orders set aside [Paras 1-14].

Procedure under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act – Statutory obligation for independent enquiry – Collector's failure to determine true value of property as required – Appellate Authority's failure to provide reasoning for upholding Collector’s order – High Court emphasized need for reasoned decisions by authorities [Paras 7-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Orders by Collector and Commissioner set aside – High Court mandated proper assessment of stamp duty in accordance with prescribed procedures and consideration of factual context of property sale and possession [Para 14-15].