Service Law – Premature Retirement – Scope and Procedure – Petitioner, a Head Typist/Computer Assistant Grade-I in OPTCL, was prematurely retired at age 53 under Clause 3(ii) of the OSEB Employees’ Age of Retirement Regulation, 1979 – Review Committee relied on Government guidelines (24.09.2019) intended to weed out inefficient or doubtful integrity employees – Held: Under Para 4 of the guidelines, review of Group-C and D employees can be undertaken only upon attaining age 50 and/or 55 years – Review at age 53 contrary to prescribed procedure – Once procedure is laid down by statute or executive instructions, it must be followed strictly [Paras 6.4–6.6].

Administrative Law – Doctrine of “Manner Prescribed” – Where statute or rule prescribes a mode for exercise of power, it must be done only in that manner or not at all – Principles reiterated from Bernard Francis Joseph v. State of Karnataka, Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja, and Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT – Review Committee acted contrary to mandatory procedure; its recommendation invalid [Paras 2.6–2.9, 6.5–6.6].

Service Law – Adverse Confidential Reports – Communication and Effect – The only alleged adverse remark in CCR for 2016–17 (“very negative attitude”) was never communicated to Petitioner – No other adverse CCR on record – Minor punishment in 2007 followed by successive promotions in 2013 and 2015 – Held: Non-communication of adverse remark vitiates reliance thereon for compulsory retirement; subsequent promotions indicate satisfactory service [Paras 6.7–6.8].

Compulsory Retirement – Judicial Review – Entire service record must be considered; old minor punishment cannot justify premature retirement absent continuing inefficiency or doubtful integrity – Reliance placed on State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, and CISF v. HC (GD) Om Prakash – Action of Corporation arbitrary and without public interest foundation [Paras 6.8–6.9].

Decision: Order dated 09.10.2020 prematurely retiring Petitioner quashed – Petitioner to be reinstated with continuity of service – Break period to be regularized with 50% back benefits – Exercise to be completed within two months [Paras 6.9–6.11].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Appeal Against Acquittal – Allegation of persistent harassment due to land dispute resulting in suicide – Trial Court acquitted accused/respondents under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC – Appellate Court held that mere existence of land dispute and allegation of threats without proximate and direct evidence of instigation or intentional aid is insufficient to constitute abetment – No injuries found except ligature mark – Absence of any prior complaint or FIR weakens prosecution case – Held: Acquittal justified, no illegality or perversity found in trial court's judgment [Paras 2–24]

Criminal Law – Standard of Proof – Presumption of Innocence – Prosecution witnesses were mostly family members whose testimonies contained contradictions and exaggerations – Independent witnesses stated no quarrel or harassment – Prosecution failed to prove mens rea or active role of accused in causing suicide – Trial Court’s findings based on reasonable appreciation of evidence – Held: Suspicion cannot substitute legal proof beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12–15, 22–24]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Appeal Against Acquittal – Appellate court must not interfere with acquittal unless findings are perverse, illegal, or manifestly erroneous – If two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must be adopted – Citing authoritative precedents, Court reaffirms legal principles guiding appellate interference in acquittal – Held: No error in trial court judgment – Acquittal affirmed [Paras 20–24]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 10.12.2019 passed by the Sessions Court, Panna, affirmed – No ground made out for interference – Order regarding disposal of property also affirmed.

Administrative Law – Writ of Mandamus – Police Interference in Business Activity – Licensing of Chemicals – Petitioner engaged in purchase and sale of certain chemicals for which no explosives licence was required as confirmed by Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives (letter dated 15.02.2023) – Police allegedly visiting petitioner’s shop and obstructing business – State contended that shop situated in a narrow area posed safety risks and that petitioner was shown as accused in Crime No. 235/2021 under Sections 304-II, 286, 336, 338 IPC & Section 9(B) Explosives Act – Petitioner refuted criminal involvement, asserting non-mention in FIR – Held: As the chemicals traded did not require an explosives licence, police directed not to interfere with petitioner’s business operations – However, police not precluded from following due process of law to ensure public safety – Writ Petition disposed of accordingly [Paras 3–7].

Decision: Police directed not to interfere with petitioner’s business activities; liberty reserved to act in accordance with law to ensure public safety – Writ Petition disposed of – No order as to costs.

Renewable Energy – Generation Based Incentive (GBI) – Interpretation of Clause 8 of MNRE Guidelines (2010) – Power to Remove Difficulties – Committee’s Decision – Tariff Determination – Scheme provided that GBI shall be the difference between tariff determined by CERC and the Base Rate (Rs. 5.50/kWh escalated annually) – Committee under Clause 8 decided that tariff prevailing at project registration (as determined by State Commission, Rs. 15.84/kWh) alone would apply – Held: Committee exceeded its jurisdiction – Power to “remove difficulties” cannot rewrite or alter substantive provisions of the Guidelines or the MoU executed between IREDA and the Distribution Utility – Decision of Committee dated 15.03.2013 not tenable [Paras 38–43].

Administrative Law – Waiver – Acquiescence – Estoppel – Conduct of Party – CSPDCL, by its letter dated 28.06.2013, accepted applicability of Rs. 15.84/kWh as per MNRE Guidelines and failed to challenge the Committee’s decision – Further, it earlier pursued same issue before CSERC and APTEL where it was rejected – Filing writ petition in 2017 after two years of APTEL’s rejection shows acquiescence and waiver of right – Held: By its conduct, respondent abandoned its claim and was estopped from reopening issue [Paras 55–58].

Writ Jurisdiction – Monetary Claims – Delay and Laches – Limitation – Petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus for payment of differential GBI amounts to a money recovery claim – Relief corresponding to civil suit remedy, which would be barred by limitation – Writ not maintainable – Reliance placed on Tilokchand & Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110 – Held: Learned Single Judge erred in entertaining time-barred monetary claim; petition ought to have been dismissed [Paras 51–53, 59–61].

Judicial Discipline – Non-consideration of Estoppel Plea – Error Apparent – Learned Single Judge failed to return finding on appellant’s plea of estoppel despite noting it – Omission held to vitiate impugned judgment [Para 60].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of Single Judge dated 21.05.2025 set aside – Writ Petition (C) No. 4527/2017 dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 62].

Criminal Law – Discharge – Scope under Sections 438 & 442 BNSS (Corresponding to Sections 227–228 CrPC) – Revision against rejection of discharge – Petitioner/Accused No.11 sought discharge on the ground that his name did not appear in FIR or witness statements and that the only material against him was the confession of Accused No.4 before police – Held: At the stage of considering discharge, court is to examine only whether prima facie material exists to proceed to trial – Strong suspicion suffices; not necessary to evaluate admissibility or evidentiary weight of confession – Whether confession is hit by Section 25 or saved under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to be decided after full trial – Trial Court justified in rejecting discharge [Paras 7–16].

Evidence – Confession of Co-Accused – Inadmissibility – Confession of Accused No.4 implicating Petitioner recorded by Investigating Officer – Though confession to police is inadmissible under Section 25 Evidence Act, its evidentiary value, if linked to recovery or corroboration, can be examined during trial – Discharge cannot be claimed solely on that ground at pre-trial stage [Paras 13–15].

Criminal Law – Prima Facie Case – Standard for Framing Charge – Principles reiterated from Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979), P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala (2010), State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao (2023), and State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (2021) – At stage of discharge, Judge has to sift and weigh prosecution material to see if strong suspicion exists; not to undertake detailed analysis or determine guilt [Paras 9–12].

Criminal Revision – Discharge Rejection – Petitioner found to be suspect sheet holder and son of co-accused alleged to have conspired – Recovery of weapon and alleged role reflected in charge-sheet sufficient to proceed – No prima facie case for discharge made out – Revision dismissed [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Order of Trial Court refusing discharge confirmed – No order as to costs [Para 17].

Land Laws – Partition of Joint Holding – Ex Parte Proceedings – Allegation of Wrong Address – Petitioner challenged partition order dated 30.08.2018 and appellate order dated 09.08.2024 on ground that respondent No.3 mentioned wrong address to prevent his participation – Held: Petitioner failed to produce any material, including jamabandi or revenue record, to prove that respondent No.3 knew his correct address or intentionally misrepresented it – Mere allegation without supporting document insufficient to vitiate partition proceedings [Paras 4–5].

Participation in Proceedings – Estoppel – Record showed petitioner’s counsel had appeared before Assistant Collector, gave no objection to Naksha Bey, and submitted reply on 28.08.2018 – Finding of Financial Commissioner that petitioner participated in proceedings remained uncontroverted – Having participated and failed to object to Naksha Alif, mode of partition, Naksha Bey, or Naksha Zeem, petitioner estopped from challenging partition after conclusion of proceedings [Paras 6–7].

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – High Court under Articles 226/227 will not re-appreciate findings of fact or reopen concluded partition proceedings absent jurisdictional error, fraud, or procedural illegality – No such infirmity found – Petition dismissed [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Orders of Assistant Collector (30.08.2018) and Financial Commissioner (09.08.2024) upheld – All pending applications closed [Paras 8–9].

Custody of Minor – Non-Compliance with Production Order – Discretion under Section 45(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act – Family Court directed mother to produce child before it on 10.09.2025, failing which she was made liable for prosecution and per diem costs – Appellant residing in Sharjah after remarriage pleaded inability to travel due to financial hardship and lack of employment – Held: While the mother and child are bound to submit to jurisdiction of Family Court, insistence on immediate appearance unreasonable given her foreign residence and circumstances – Opportunity granted to appear with child on reopening day of Family Court in January 2026 [Paras 5–9, 11–13, 16].

Guardianship Proceedings – Welfare of Child – Interaction by High Court – High Court interacted with mother and child via online platform – Child expressed desire to reunite with elder sister living with father – Court observed emotional divide between siblings due to parental dispute and directed Family Court to consider best interests of both children during further proceedings [Paras 8–10].

Procedural Fairness – Practical Considerations in Custody Orders – High Court observed that orders requiring international travel by a single parent must consider genuine financial incapacity and logistical limitations – Family Court erred in not accommodating reasonable timelines – Directed parties to cooperate and allowed production of child in January 2026 to ensure compliance without undue hardship [Paras 12–16].

Decision:

Matrimonial Appeal and Original Petition allowed – Impugned orders dated 21.08.2025 (IA 11/2025) and 01.09.2025 (IA 12/2025) of the Family Court set aside – Appellant directed to appear with minor child before Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram on reopening day in January 2026 – Family Court to proceed thereafter as per law after hearing both sides.

Scheduled Tribe Certificate – Jurisdiction of Sub-Divisional Officer – Act of 2000 – Petitioners challenged rejection of their applications for Scheduled Tribe certificates by SDO and Caste Scrutiny Committee – Held: Under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, SDO is only empowered to issue caste certificates, not adjudicate their validity – Scrutiny of validity lies solely with the Caste Scrutiny Committee under Section 6 – Impugned orders quashed as being without jurisdiction [Paras 10-11, 13].

Caste Scrutiny Committee – Premature Adjudication – Caste Scrutiny Committee rejected appeal treating it as a validity determination – Held: Committee acted beyond jurisdiction by deciding caste validity at appeal stage before certificate was issued – Required to examine only when certificate is referred for verification under prescribed procedure – Action contrary to statutory scheme and binding precedents [Paras 12-13].

Precedent – Identical Issues Already Decided – Reliance placed on prior binding decisions in W.P. No. 7081 of 2024, Namdeo Baburao Ingale, Dhanashree Ravindra Koli and Vishal Namdeo Gopewad – Consistent view that SDO cannot adjudicate caste validity while issuing certificate – Impugned orders quashed following settled position [Paras 10, 13].

Direction to Authorities – Writ Allowed – SDO directed to issue caste certificates to petitioners within three weeks – Scrutiny Committee directed to consider caste validity afresh, without being influenced by earlier findings, if referred as per procedure [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Failure of Prosecution to Establish Complete Chain – Appellant convicted for murder of his adoptive parents (D-1 and D-2) – Prosecution case based entirely on circumstantial evidence – No eyewitness – Trial Court convicted relying on appellant’s presence in the house, alleged motive to inherit property, false plea in FIR, and subsequent abscondence – Held: Mere presence of appellant in same house, inconsistent defence, and abscondence are insufficient to establish guilt – Conduct of appellant in lodging FIR, calling neighbours, accompanying deceased to post-mortem, and cooperating with investigation was natural – Chain of circumstances incomplete and incapable of excluding hypothesis of innocence – Conviction based on conjecture and surmise, not legal proof [Paras 13–16, 19].

Motive – Property Dispute – Absence of Cogent Evidence – Prosecution failed to establish any motive for the appellant to kill his adoptive parents – Witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.9 deposed cordial relations between deceased couple and appellant – Trial Court erred in relying solely on P.W.1’s version – Absence of motive weighs in favour of the accused in a circumstantial case [Paras 12, 19].

Second FIR – Legality – Investigation Based on Subsequent Discovery – Second FIR (Ext.17) lodged by Investigating Officer after initial FIR by appellant (Ext.14) held irregular but not illegal – Applying ratio in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 – Proper course was to include appellant as accused in first case rather than register a fresh FIR – Irregularity did not vitiate prosecution in absence of prejudice [Para 17].

Investigation – Informant as Investigating Officer – Bias Allegation – Merely because Investigating Officer was also informant of second FIR does not vitiate investigation – No proof of mala fides or bias – Reliance placed on Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), (2020) 10 SCC 120 and State v. V. Jaya Paul, AIR 2004 SC 2684 [Para 18].

Absconding – Relevance under Section 8, Evidence Act – Mere abscondence cannot establish guilt – Absconding may indicate fear of arrest but is not conclusive proof of guilt – Cited Matru v. State of U.P., (1971) 2 SCC 75 and Sekaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2024) 2 SCC 176 [Para 15].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Burden of Proof – Prosecution cannot invoke Section 106 to compensate for its failure to prove a complete chain – Burden shifts to accused only after prosecution establishes prima facie case – Court cautioned against reversing burden without foundational proof [Para 16].

Conduct of Accused – Lodging FIR and Accompanying Deceased – Appellant’s conduct found natural and consistent with innocence – His immediate lodging of FIR and cooperation during investigation cannot be treated as incriminating conduct [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled – Trial Court judgment reversed [Paras 19–20].