Service Law - Pension Eligibility – Computation of Service Period – Employee Entitled to Pension – The petitioner was employed from 1985 to 1987, a fact verified by the Provident Fund (PF) authority. Respondent No. 3, the employer, failed to provide records, but the PF authority acknowledged the petitioner’s service tenure. Held, the concerned authority must consider this period while computing the petitioner’s pension entitlement [Paras 8-9].

Provident Fund Dues – Verification of Employer’s Calculation – No Interference Warranted – The petitioner sought payment of Rs.3,74,954 based on recalculated dues. The employer’s calculations were verified by the PF authorities, and a reasoned order was passed. Held, no interference is required with the PF authorities’ findings [Para 10].

Interest on Delayed Settlement – Limitation on Inoperative Accounts – The petitioner claimed interest beyond 31/03/2014 on his PF dues. The court held that, as per the Notification dated 15/01/2011, the account became inoperative after 36 months from the date of cessation of employment on 17/07/1987. Consequently, interest was only payable till 31/03/2014, and the petitioner was not entitled to further interest [Para 7].

Refund of Overpaid Amount – Condition for Further Pension Processing – The PF authorities required the petitioner to refund Rs.51,072 (excess payment) for processing his Employees’ Family Pension Scheme (1971) membership. Held, the petitioner must comply with this requirement before further action can be initiated [Para 7].

Decision: The writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the appropriate PF authority may compute the petitioner’s pension by considering his service period from 1985 to 1987. However, there is no reason to interfere with the reasoned order regarding provident fund dues. Admissible dues must be granted within two months from the date of this order.

Criminal Law – Murder - Appeal against Conviction - Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC – Grave and Sudden Provocation – The accused, deceased, and their friend had been drinking alcohol throughout the day. The deceased misbehaved with the accused’s wife in the presence of her family members, leading to a confrontation. In the heat of the moment, the accused struck the deceased with firewood. Held, the accused did not have the intention to cause death, and the act was committed under grave and sudden provocation, bringing the case under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC. The conviction under Section 302 IPC was modified to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 21-23].

Intention vs. Knowledge – Application of Section 304 Part II IPC – The accused struck the deceased 2-3 times with firewood, causing fatal head injuries. The prosecution did not establish premeditation or intent to kill. Held, the accused could be imputed with knowledge, not intent, that his act was likely to cause death, warranting punishment under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC [Paras 29-33].

Sentence Modification – Reduction from Life Imprisonment to Seven Years – The Sessions Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. Considering the circumstances of the offence, the High Court reduced the punishment to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II IPC, along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, to be paid to the victim’s wife [Paras 34-35].

Decision: The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside, and the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC. The sentence is modified to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, failing which he shall undergo an additional six months rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence under Sections 326 and 324 IPC remain unaltered. If the fine is realized, Rs. 1,50,000 shall be given to PW4, the victim’s wife.
 

Criminal Procedure – Magistrate’s Power Under Section 156(3) CrPC – Whether Magistrate Can Direct a Superior Police Officer to Register FIR – Held: No – The petitioner sought quashing of the ASJ’s order setting aside the Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) CrPC to the DCP (East) to register an FIR and hand over the investigation to DIU – High Court held that a Magistrate can only direct the officer in charge of a police station, not a superior officer – Reliance placed on CBI v. State of Rajasthan (2001) – Magistrate must proceed under Section 200 CrPC when no special evidence requires police investigation [Paras 32-40, 50-51].

Filing of Criminal Complaint – Whether Alternative Remedies Available – Held: Yes – Petitioner alleged collusion between police officials and accused persons and sought registration of an FIR – High Court held that mere allegations against police officials without special evidence do not justify invoking Section 156(3) CrPC – Petitioner had alternative remedies, including filing a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC – Reliance placed on Subhkaran Luharuka v. State (2013) [Paras 42-45, 50].

Inherent Powers of the High Court – Quashing of ASJ’s Order Under Section 528 BNSS (Earlier Section 482 CrPC) – Held: No Grounds for Interference – High Court emphasized that inherent powers must be used sparingly to prevent abuse of process – ASJ’s order directing Magistrate to proceed under Section 200 CrPC instead of ordering an FIR was held to be legally sound – No illegality or miscarriage of justice found to justify interference under Section 528 BNSS – Petitions dismissed [Paras 52-53].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – ASJ’s Order Upheld – Delhi High Court upheld the impugned order dated 17/07/2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-01 (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi – Magistrate exceeded jurisdiction under Section 156(3) CrPC by directing a DCP instead of SHO – Petitioner directed to pursue alternative remedies under Section 200 CrPC [Paras 54-55].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Retaliatory FIR – Timing of Complaint – Malicious Prosecution Inferred – The husband filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 18/10/2023, and the wife lodged the FIR shortly thereafter on 27/10/2023. No explanation was provided for the delay in filing the complaint, despite her claim of being driven out of the matrimonial home on 21/04/2023. Held, the FIR appears to be a retaliatory measure rather than a genuine grievance [Paras 6-7].

Omnibus Allegations – Lack of Specific Role Attribution – Quashing Justified – The FIR contained general allegations without assigning specific roles to the accused. Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were identical and lacked independent corroboration. The charge sheet also failed to establish the role of each accused, violating the principles laid down in Sharif Ahmed v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 726. Held, continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process [Paras 7, 10-11].

Medical Evidence – Contradictions in Injury Report – The private opposite party alleged physical assault by the husband, but her medical report showed no external injuries. Despite this, the injury was classified as "simple" without any basis. Held, such contradictions cast doubt on the veracity of the allegations [Para 8].

Exercise of Inherent Powers – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – The High Court has the authority under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings where the allegations lack substance, and the prosecution appears to be an abuse of legal process. Held, in the absence of prima facie evidence, allowing the case to continue would be unjustified [Paras 9, 12].

Decision: The criminal revision petitions are allowed. The proceedings in G.R. Case No. 895 of 2023 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantan, Paschim Medinipur, are quashed. The petitioners are set at liberty and discharged from their bail bonds.

Service Law – Pensionary Benefits – Parity with Similarly Placed Employees – Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India – Direction to Consider Claims – The petitioners, retired SLR workers of the Water Resources Department, sought pensionary benefits citing discrimination as the Government had extended similar benefits to SLR workers in the Fisheries Department – The Tribunal disposed of the matter, leaving it to the Government’s discretion – The High Court observed that the Government must maintain parity in service conditions for similarly placed employees – Held: The Government is directed to reconsider the petitioners' claims in light of the Cabinet Decision dated 16/02/2011 and the Apex Court judgments, including Rajkaran Singh v. Union of India [(2004) 8 SCR 516] [Paras 4-10].

Employment Regularization – Long Continuous Service – Applicability of Apex Court Judgments – The petitioners relied on Rajkaran Singh v. Union of India and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India [(2024 INSC 332)] to argue that their continuous service of over a decade warranted reclassification as regular employees and entitlement to pension – The High Court noted that employment rights cannot be determined solely by initial terms of appointment but must consider the substantive nature of work performed over time – Held: Government must assess whether the petitioners' service conditions evolved to justify pensionary benefits and provide them an opportunity to be heard [Paras 8-9].

Judicial Review – Scope of Court’s Intervention in Policy Decisions – The Government contended that extending pensionary benefits to SLR workers in the Water Resources Department would impose a financial burden – The Court held that while fiscal considerations are relevant, they cannot override constitutional principles of equal treatment – Held: The Government must take a reasoned decision within three months while considering the Apex Court’s directives on service regularization and pension entitlements [Para 10].

Decision: – The Original Petitions are disposed of with directions to the Government to reconsider the claims of the petitioners within three months and provide them an opportunity of hearing.
 

Bail under NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Conscious Possession – Applicant sought bail in a case involving seizure of 1880 grams of MDMA, well above the commercial quantity threshold of 10 grams – Prosecution established that the applicant inquired about the parcels containing contraband, attempted to collect them while concealing his identity, and fled upon sensing law enforcement presence – Held: Applicant’s conduct indicates knowledge and involvement, satisfying prima facie conscious possession under the NDPS Act [Paras 8-9] – Decision: Bail denied.

*Rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – In cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, bail can only be granted if the Court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is unlikely to commit another offence while on bail – Given the weight of the seized contraband and the ongoing investigation into a larger drug trafficking conspiracy, the Court found that the applicant failed to meet the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act [Paras 10-12] – Decision: Bail application dismissed.

Ongoing Investigation – Risk of Absconding – Co-accused absconding – The applicant’s brother-in-law and driver, key suspects, remain untraceable – CBI argued that releasing the applicant could compromise the investigation into an international drug trafficking syndicate – Held: Given the gravity of the offence and potential risk of absconding or tampering with evidence, bail cannot be granted at this stage [Paras 11-12] – Decision: Bail denied.

Duration of Incarceration – Speedy Trial – Applicant argued for bail on the ground of prolonged custody – Court held that while the right to a speedy trial is fundamental, the ongoing investigation into international drug trafficking justifies continued judicial custody – No indication of undue delay attributable to the prosecution [Paras 13-14] – Decision: Bail denied.
 

Labour Law - Certified Standing Orders – Exercise of Power Under Clause 28 – Non-Compliance with Clause 27 – Impersonation Allegation – Removal Set Aside – Clause 28 allows removal without following regular departmental enquiry only in limited cases such as criminal conviction or when continuation of service is against security interests – In the present case, the management failed to conduct a departmental enquiry under Clause 27, and the inquiry report did not find the petitioner guilty of impersonation – Removal based on police verification report alone was unsustainable [Paras 29-31, 38, 44].

Industrial Tribunal – Scrutiny of Enquiry under Section 11-A of the ID Act – Failure of Tribunal – Tribunal upheld removal based on police report without scrutinizing the fairness and adequacy of the enquiry report – The Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11-A to reassess evidence and consider whether the punishment was appropriate – Held: Award of Tribunal is perverse and liable to be set aside [Paras 26, 39, 43, 51].

Impersonation Allegation – Evidence and Procedural Deficiencies – The management failed to provide evidence or conduct a proper enquiry proving that the petitioner impersonated Rohini Deshwalin, wife of Kali Deshwali – The complainant did not testify, and conflicting evidence (Form-B records, service excerpts) left the issue of impersonation unresolved – Held: The removal order was passed without proper basis and in violation of principles of natural justice [Paras 33, 35, 38-41].

Natural Justice – Removal Without Opportunity to Defend – Police verification report, relied upon to remove the petitioner, was obtained without giving her an opportunity to respond or cross-examine witnesses – Such removal is contrary to principles of natural justice and amounts to procedural impropriety [Paras 41, 45].

Back Wages – Limited Relief Due to Superannuation – Petitioner attained superannuation during the pendency of proceedings – Considering the unblemished service record prior to removal and procedural violations by the management, the Court granted 50% back wages from the date of reference to the Tribunal until superannuation, with all consequential benefits [Paras 52-53].

Decision: Writ petition allowed. Impugned award dated 30/08/2012 of the Industrial Tribunal set aside. Order of removal dated 18/03/2000 quashed. Petitioner entitled to 50% back wages from 19/09/2001 (reference date) until 10/01/2009 (date of superannuation) with all consequential benefits.
 

Service Law - Juvenile Justice Act – Applicability to Recruitment – Suppression of Criminal Case – Petitioner, a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence, did not disclose a pending criminal case in his attestation form when joining SSB – Termination of service on this basis held unsustainable – Juveniles are protected from disqualification under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – Omission to disclose such information runs contrary to the spirit and intent of the JJ Act – Held: Petitioner’s termination violated statutory safeguards provided to juveniles, and such termination is unsustainable [Paras 30-38].

Verification of Antecedents – Employment in Disciplined Force – While antecedent verification is important for employment in armed forces, employers must consider legal safeguards for juveniles – Police disclosure of information related to a juvenile's case violates confidentiality under the JJ Act – Such disclosures cannot form the basis for termination of service [Paras 32-39].

Juvenile Justice Act – No Stigma or Disqualification for Juvenile Offenders – Sections 19 and 21 of the JJ Act, 2000 ensure that juveniles in conflict with law are not subjected to stigma or disqualification even after conviction – The petitioner, as a juvenile, was not obligated to disclose pending proceedings – Employer’s action disregarded the protective legislative intent of the JJ Act [Paras 34-38].

Termination of Service – False Information in Attestation Form – The petitioner’s omission to disclose pending criminal proceedings due to his juvenile status does not amount to suppression or false declaration – Reliance on Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar and Mukesh Yadav vs. Union of India underscores the principle that minor indiscretions of youth or omissions should not result in disqualification or stigma for life – Held: Termination unjustified [Paras 40-43].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned orders dated 27/09/2017 and 15/12/2014 terminating the petitioner’s service were quashed. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner within 12 weeks, with all consequential benefits except back wages. [Paras 45-46]
 

False Information to Authorities – Section 58(2) of the NDPS Act – Disproportionality in Sentencing – Petitioner accused of providing false information to authorities, leading to the arrest of an innocent woman (Sheela Sunny) under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act – Held: False implication in NDPS cases can have devastating consequences; penalties for such false accusations must be proportionate to the severity of harm caused – Registry directed to forward a copy of this order to the Union of India to consider legislative changes ensuring harsher penalties for such offenses [Paras 2-3, 10-11].

Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation – Seriousness of Allegations – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that only a bailable offense under Section 58(2) NDPS Act was applicable – Held: The allegations suggest a larger conspiracy, requiring thorough investigation, including custodial interrogation – The gravity of the alleged act precludes the grant of anticipatory bail – Application dismissed [Paras 9-12, 14-16].

Investigation into Conspiracy – Role of Informants – Safeguards Needed – Allegations that the petitioner conspired to falsely implicate an innocent woman in an NDPS case for personal motives – Held: Investigating Officer directed to probe the wider conspiracy, including the petitioner’s role and his connection to the individuals involved – State Police Chief directed to form a special investigation team to complete the investigation within three months [Paras 14-17].

Delay in Chemical Analysis – Alleged Evaporation of LSD Stamps – Burden of Possession – Petitioner argued that the delay of 74 days in analyzing seized LSD stamps could have caused the substance to evaporate – Held: If proven, the petitioner and co-conspirators may also face charges under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act for possession and conspiracy – Investigation to consider all angles [Paras 15-16].

Judicial Observations on False Accusations – Need for Accountability – Court emphasized the destructive impact of false accusations on innocent individuals – Observed that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth comes to light – Urged legislative action to ensure stringent penalties and justice for victims of false implications [Paras 11, 17].

Decision: Anticipatory bail application dismissed. Petitioner directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 7 days. Investigating Officer authorized to take coercive steps in case of non-surrender. State Police Chief directed to complete the investigation within 3 months. Jurisdictional Court instructed to dispose of the case within 4 months upon filing of the final report. Registry directed to forward a copy of this order to the State Police Chief, the Union of India, and the Jurisdictional Court [Paras 17-18].