Administrative Law – Delay in Departmental Proceedings – Charge-sheet for Allotment Irregularities – Initiation of departmental proceedings 14 years post-incident and 3 years post-discharge in a criminal case – Held, departmental proceedings initiated after such delay cannot be justified, especially when based on identical facts leading to discharge in the criminal case – Charges quashed, and petitioner entitled to all due benefits. [Paras 13-14]

Criminal Law – Right Against Double Jeopardy – Vexed Twice on Same Imputation – Departmental charges identical to those in the criminal case leading to discharge – Held, petitioner cannot be vexed twice on the same imputation of charges – Department's failure to present fresh material other than what was presented in the criminal case. [Paras 12-13]

Administrative Law – Role of Allotment Authority – Petitioner not the Allotment Authority – Evidence showing petitioner's non-involvement in allotment process – Held, petitioner, a Naib Tehsildar, not involved in allotment, conspiracy charges against him unsustainable without direct evidence. [Para 10]

Decision – Petition allowed – Charge-sheet dated 27.11.2012 and consequential proceedings quashed – All pensionary benefits including gratuity to be released to the petitioner within two months – If promotion withheld due to proceedings, competent authority to review and decide eligibility. [Paras 14]

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Vicarious Liability of Directors – Ex-Director Liability – Petitioner resigned prior to issuance of disputed cheque – Form No. 32 and annual return showed resignation – Held, Magistrate not justified in summoning petitioner without specific averments in the complaint regarding his role in conduct of company’s business – Summoning order and complaint quashed. [Paras 1-3, 21]

Criminal Law – Summoning of Accused – Prima Facie Satisfaction – Magistrate must be satisfied on the basis of material produced that prima facie case exists – Material referred to in complainant's reply but not in the complaint cannot be considered at summoning stage. [Paras 6-7, 21]

Corporate Law – Director’s Liability – Requirements for Summoning – For non-Chairman/Managing/Joint Managing Director or authorized signatory, specific averments about their role in company’s business necessary – Mere reproduction of Section 141 words insufficient for other directors – Court to seek Form No. 32 and latest annual return to determine directors at time of offense. [Paras 28-29]

Decision – Petitions allowed – Summoning orders and complaints quashed – Trial Courts directed to obtain Form No. 32 and annual return before summoning directors to ensure correct identification of directors during offense. [Paras 27, 29-30]

Debt Recovery – Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Section 17 of Securitization Act – Application under Section 17 dismissed by DRT due to lack of power to condone delay – Held, provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 applicable to proceedings under Section 17 in view of Section 24 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 – DRT has power to condone delay – Matter remitted back to DRT to decide the application for condonation of delay afresh on merits. [Paras 6-9, 18]

Debt Recovery – Special Law – Applicability of General Law – Securitization Act does not expressly exclude the application of Limitation Act, 1963 – Therefore, Section 5 of Limitation Act applicable to proceedings under Section 17 of Securitization Act – Impugned orders quashed. [Paras 7, 18-19]

Decision – Petitions allowed – Impugned orders passed by DRT quashed – Matter remitted back to DRT to decide application for condonation of delay afresh on merits. [Para 19]

Evidence Law – Electronic Records – Admissibility – Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act – Conditions for Electronic Evidence – Petitioner's request for voice sample comparison dismissed due to non-compliance with Section 65B requirements – Held, electronic records must be accompanied by a certificate as per Section 65B for admissibility – Petitioner failed to establish the authenticity of the recordings. [Paras 8, 19-21]

Evidence Law – Electronic Records – Primary and Secondary Evidence – No categorization of electronic records as primary or secondary – All electronic evidence must meet the conditions of Section 65B – Petitioner's recordings deemed unauthentic without necessary certification and source details. [Para 11, 16]

Decision – Petition dismissed – Trial Court's order upheld – Petitioner failed to prove the authenticity of electronic evidence – Trial Court directed to complete the trial within two months. [Paras 21-23]

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption Act – Mandatory Sanction – Competent Authority’s Refusal – Petitioner’s sanction for prosecution refused twice while in service – Post-retirement prosecution without sanction held invalid – Court's cognizance taken without valid sanction not as per law – Charges framed against petitioner set aside. [Paras 7-8]

Criminal Procedure – Sanction for Prosecution – Public Servant – Court returned cancellation report for further investigation twice – Prosecution attempted post-retirement without sanction – Held, once competent authority declined sanction, subsequent prosecution without it is impermissible even after retirement – Revision allowed, petitioner discharged. [Paras 7-8, 11]

Decision – Revision petition allowed – Order framing charges set aside – Petitioner discharged from charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. [Para 11]

Administrative Law – Delay and Laches – Promotion and Seniority – High Court Establishment Rules – Petitioner aggrieved by delay in promotion due to administrative inaction – High Court objects to delay and laches – Held, objections of delay and laches overruled as the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution is breached – Petitioner entitled to equal opportunity and fairness in action – Notional promotion from the date of availability of vacancy directed. [Para 23, 28]

Administrative Law – Equal Opportunity – Rule of Relaxation – Rule 38 of High Court Establishment Rules – Petitioner's promotion delayed despite recommendations for relaxation – Three batch-mates promoted earlier by relaxation of rules – Held, petitioner entitled to same relaxation and seniority as batch-mates – Seniority to be re-drawn accordingly. [Para 27-28]

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Impugned orders denying petitioner's claim invalidated – Petitioner to be notionally promoted from the date of availability of vacancy and seniority re-drawn – Seniority to be re-assigned over respondents 2 to 4 in the cadre of Judgment Writers and subsequent higher posts. [Para 28]

Constitutional Law – Equal Pay for Equal Work – Fixed Monthly Emoluments – Punjab Government’s notification providing only basic pay during probation and excluding probation period from total service held illegal – Held, violative of Articles 14 and 39 of the Constitution – Petitioners entitled to same salary as regular employees. [Paras 24, 27]

Employment Law – Probation Period – Exclusion from Total Service – Notification excluding probation period from total service period quashed – Probationary employees entitled to count probation period as part of their total service – Fixed monthly emoluments without allowances during probation period held unconscionable and exploitative. [Paras 24, 28]

Decision – Notification dated 15.1.2015 quashed – Petitioners entitled to full salary and benefits as regular employees from the date of judgment – Judgment applicable to all similarly situated employees. [Para 28]

Excise Law – Liquor License – Renewal – Conditions for Renewal – Petitioners' licenses not renewed for failing to meet the minimum monthly sale of non-alcoholic items as required by Haryana Excise Policy 2018-19 – Held, Rule 13 of the Haryana Liquor License Rules does not confer a right to renewal as a matter of right – Condition for renewal requiring average monthly sales of Rs. 2,00,000/- from non-alcoholic items upheld as lawful and reasonable. [Paras 12-13]

Excise Law – Manipulation of Sales – Evidence of Sudden Increase – Sales records showed a sudden and disproportionate increase in non-alcoholic items sales just before policy implementation – Court finds manipulation to meet policy conditions – Licenses rightly not renewed based on consistent and low sales figures except for manipulated months. [Para 11]

Administrative Law – Policy Changes – Retrospective Application – Condition for renewal in new policy not considered retrospective – Applicable to all licenses irrespective of previous policy terms – Held, no vested right for renewal under previous policies without conditions. [Para 12]

Decision – Writ petitions dismissed – Non-renewal of licenses upheld – Policy conditions for renewal deemed reasonable and not arbitrary. [Para 13]

Administrative Law – Policy Change – Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel – Cash Grant in Lieu of Land – Petition challenging government notification changing the mode of compensation from land allotment to cash grant for war widows and other defense personnel's families – Held, doctrine of promissory estoppel applicable only to applications made within the cutoff date of 27.01.1976 under the earlier scheme – New applications to be processed under the impugned notification, doctrine of promissory estoppel not attracted – Notification upheld as a valid policy decision due to non-availability of surplus agricultural land. [Paras 3, 4, 8, 9]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Writ of Certiorari – Petition seeking quashing of notification providing cash grant instead of land allotment dismissed – Notification found not contemptuous of prior court orders – Policy decision within the State Government’s rights – No arbitrariness or discrimination found in the policy. [Paras 1, 7, 11, 12]

Land Law – Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act – Compensation for War Widows – Evolution of policy from land allotment to cash grants due to practical constraints – Adequate compensation determined by considering facts and figures, including Collector's rates – Notification aligned with earlier judicial decisions. [Paras 2, 6, 10]

Decision – Petition dismissed – Notification upheld – State Government’s policy decision to grant cash compensation instead of land is valid and lawful. [Para 12]