Service Law - Jurisdiction of Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) – Section 46 of BSF Act – Trial of Civil Offences – Nullity of Proceedings – The Summary Security Force Court convicted and punished the petitioners for remitting bank drafts disproportionate to their known sources of income under Section 46 of the BSF Act read with Section 13(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Held: Section 46 permits the trial of civil offences but Rule 47 of BSF Rules explicitly restricts SSFC jurisdiction to certain limited offences, such as simple hurt and theft – SSFC lacked jurisdiction to try offences under Section 13(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Impugned orders quashed [Paras 24-27].

Failure to Conduct Proper Inquiry – Violation of BSF Act and Rules – Petitioners were not afforded an opportunity to be heard, and no proper inquiry was conducted as required under the BSF Act and Rules – Held: Proceedings and convictions are violative of procedural safeguards and natural justice – Punishments awarded are illegal and unsustainable [Paras 23-26].

Restoration of Service – Nullity of Dismissal Orders – Petitioners’ dismissal from service was declared void due to lack of jurisdiction and procedural violations – Held: Petitioners entitled to reinstatement in service with back wages, subject to further prosecution by the respondents [Para 27].

Judicial Precedent – Applicability of Sumanta Dutta v. Union of India – The Court relied on the judgment in Sumanta Dutta v. Union of India, SWP No. 135/2005, wherein it was held that the SSFC lacked jurisdiction to try civil offences beyond simple hurt and theft – Held: The legal principles enunciated in Sumanta Dutta squarely apply to the present cases [Paras 25-27].

Relief Granted:
The impugned orders passed by the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) were quashed as being without jurisdiction and a nullity in law.
Petitioners were directed to be reinstated in service.
Payment of back wages shall depend on whether the respondents prosecute the petitioners further; if no prosecution is initiated, petitioners shall be entitled to full back wages from the date of dismissal until reinstatement.
 

Service Law – Age of Superannuation – Classification as Class-III Employee Affirmed - Petitioner contended that he was a Class-IV employee entitled to retire at 60 years instead of 58 years – Court upheld the respondents’ classification, noting that the petitioner worked as a Diesel Mechanic in the pay scale reserved for Class-III employees, making the retirement age of 58 years applicable [Paras 5-8].

Delay and Laches – Writ Petition Filed After 8 Years – Claim Barred - Petitioner retired in 2008 but filed the writ petition in 2016, after an unexplained delay of eight years – Court held the petition barred by delay and laches, referencing authoritative precedents rejecting belated claims under equitable jurisdiction [Paras 10-13].

Equitable Relief – Rights Must Be Asserted Promptly – Judicial Discretion Applied - Even though there was no prescribed limitation, the Court emphasized the need for vigilance in asserting rights under Article 226 – Held: Relief cannot be granted to a petitioner who has slept over his rights [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed. No costs awarded.
 

Interim Orders in Public Projects – Ex-parte Stay – Procurement of Conveyor Belts – Ex-parte interim stay was granted restraining the appellants from awarding work to the lowest bidder for essential procurement of conveyor belts for thermal power plants – Court held that such orders should not lightly derail public projects critical to infrastructure or electricity production – Stay orders in such matters must be promptly reviewed or vacated to avoid adverse public consequences [Paras 10-13].

Scope of Judicial Review in Tender Matters – Lowest Bidder’s Eligibility – The award of a tender to the lowest bidder was challenged based on alleged ineligibility due to prior debarment – Court held that the procurement process adhered to fiscal prudence, expert opinion, and performance records – Judicial intervention limited to procedural fairness without disrupting public interest [Paras 11-12].

Public Interest and Expediency in Adjudication – Delay in resolving interim applications – Court criticized the prolonged pendency of stay applications, noting that unresolved interim orders effectively decide the main case – Directed the Single Bench to expeditiously conclude the writ petition within one month to prevent public detriment [Paras 9-13].

Infrastructure Projects and Judicial Restraint – Following the Supreme Court’s guidance in N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain (2022) 6 SCC 127, Court emphasized that public service contracts require judicial restraint in granting interim orders – Continuation of such orders undermines public welfare and results in avoidable state losses [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Interim stay to continue only for one month or until the writ petition is decided, whichever is earlier – Single Bench directed to dispose of the writ petition within one month [Para 14].

Matrimonial Disputes – Power to Quash FIR – Sections 498-A and 506 IPC – Non-Compoundable Offences – Amicable Settlement – FIR Quashed – In matrimonial disputes and cases relating to family matters, where the dispute is personal or private in nature, and the parties have resolved their issues amicably, the High Court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, even if some of the alleged offences are non-compoundable – Held: The continuation of criminal proceedings after a compromise would be an abuse of the process of law, and there would be no purpose served in continuing such proceedings – [Paras 9-11].

Compromise Between Parties – Legal Recognition – Sections 498-A and 506 IPC – Settlement Verified – The compromise between the parties was verified by the Registrar Judicial of the Court, and both parties confirmed its execution – Held: Once a genuine compromise is established, and the likelihood of conviction is remote, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to injustice – [Paras 3-4, 10-11].

High Court’s Inherent Powers – Matrimonial Offences – Quashing Criminal Proceedings – The High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC extends to quashing criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes when it is evident that the continuation of such proceedings would defeat the settlement and cause unnecessary hardship to the parties – [Para 9].

Judicial Precedent – Matrimonial Offences – Non-Compoundable Nature – The Supreme Court has consistently held that in cases arising from family disputes, even non-compoundable offences may be quashed in the interest of justice where a genuine settlement has been reached – Reliance placed on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 – [Para 9].

Decision: FIR Quashed: FIR No. 19/2023 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Udhampur, for offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, were quashed in light of the amicable settlement reached between the parties.

Compromise Accepted: The compromise deed executed on 12/09/2024 was verified, and its contents were confirmed by both parties.

Abuse of Process Prevented: It was held that continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law and a waste of judicial resources.

Judicial Precedents Followed: The Court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to emphasize that matrimonial disputes can be resolved through compromise, even if the offences are non-compoundable.
 

Constitutional Law – Ultra Vires Declaration – Section 10-A of Telangana Act Invalidated – Petitioners, unemployed youth, contended that Section 10-A, allowing regularization of contract employees, contravened Articles 14, 16, and 309 of the Constitution, and undermined statutory recruitment rules – Court held: Section 10-A is ultra vires as it conflicts with existing Education Service Rules and exceeds the scope of Section 101 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act – Provision quashed [Paras 50-54].

Employment – Regularization Without Transparency – Contrary to Public Policy – Regularization under Section 10-A applied to contract employees appointed without adherence to statutory procedures – Held: Public employment must adhere to principles of equality and fairness; backdoor entries into public service through opaque methods cannot be regularized retrospectively [Paras 35-39, 57].

Doctrine of Res Judicata – Not Applicable to Petitioners – Respondents’ argument that the writ petitions were barred by res judicata due to prior PIL proceedings was rejected – Court noted the earlier PIL was dismissed on technical grounds without addressing merits, and petitioners were not parties to those proceedings [Paras 10-12].

Scope of Section 101 – Limited to Modifications Without Substantive Changes – The Court emphasized that Section 101 of the Reorganisation Act permits adaptations or amendments to existing laws but does not allow for substantive legislative changes, such as the introduction of Section 10-A, which contradicts pre-existing statutory recruitment rules [Paras 42-49].

Judicial Restraint – Existing Regularized Employees Retained – While declaring Section 10-A unconstitutional, the Court declined to disturb the regularized status of employees due to their long tenure, balancing equity and public interest – Future recruitments directed to follow statutory procedures [Paras 58-60].

Decision: The Court declared Section 10-A of the Telangana Act, 1994, ultra vires and set it aside. However, it allowed the already regularized employees to continue in service, directing the State to ensure future appointments comply with statutory provisions.
 

Execution of Promissory Notes – Presumption of Consideration – Section 118(a), Negotiable Instruments Act – Execution and signatures on the promissory notes admitted by the defendants – Trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's claim based on minor discrepancies – Held: Execution of the promissory notes and consideration established; burden shifted to the defendants to rebut the presumption of consideration [Paras 27-28, 42].

Equitable Mortgage – Validity of Deposit of Title Deeds – Section 58(f), Transfer of Property Act – Deposit of title deeds with intent to create a security upheld – Defendants’ admissions during cross-examination supported the plaintiff’s claim – Equitable mortgage validly created [Paras 37-38].

Limitation Period – Error in Application of Law – Trial court wrongly applied a three-year limitation period for promissory notes, ignoring the equitable mortgage’s 12-year period under the Limitation Act – Judgment set aside [Para 14].

Interest Rate – Usurious Nature – Adjusted by Court – Interest rate of 24% per annum compounded annually found excessive – Reduced to 24% simple interest until the suit filing, followed by 12% simple interest until the judgment and 6% thereafter until realization [Paras 50-51].

Decision:

Appeal allowed in part. Trial court’s judgment dismissing the suit set aside. Plaintiff awarded:

Principal Amount: ₹2,00,000/-

Interest:

24% simple interest per annum from the transaction date to suit filing.

12% simple interest per annum from the suit filing date to the trial court judgment.

6% simple interest per annum from the judgment date until realization.

Part payments by defendants to be deducted from the decretal amount.

Defendants granted three months for redemption.

Motor Accident – Liability of Insurer – Valid Driving License Established – The appellant/Insurance Company challenged its liability to indemnify the owner on the ground that the driver did not hold a valid driving license at the time of the accident – Held: Driver of the offending vehicle, Tilak Raj, had a valid driving license issued by the DTO Gurdaspur and endorsed by RTO Rajouri – No evidence produced by the appellant to disprove the validity of the license – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10-14].

Proof of Valid Driving License – Burden of Proof – The insurance company argued that the driver’s license was fake and sought to summon witnesses from the issuing authority (DTO Gurdaspur) – Held: The driver of the offending vehicle, produced as a witness by the insurer, proved the validity of his license – Insurance company, having opted to close its evidence, failed to prove otherwise – Statement of the driver was binding on the insurer [Paras 11-13].

Assessment of Compensation – Permanent Disability – Tribunal fixed compensation based on the claimant’s established 40% disability and basic monthly income of Rs. 5000/- – Tribunal’s award of Rs. 6,24,000/- upheld – Held: The tribunal’s findings were based on the evidence of the claimant, medical expert, and witnesses, and no material irregularity was found [Paras 6-7].

Grounds for Appeal – Lack of Evidence by Insurance Company – Despite claims regarding the invalidity of the driver’s license, the insurer failed to produce witnesses or additional evidence despite seeking to summon them initially – Counsel’s decision to close evidence at the Tribunal stage was binding – Appeal found meritless [Paras 12-14].

Decision: The appeal filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was dismissed. The Tribunal’s findings, including the award of Rs. 6,24,000/- as compensation with 7.5% interest in favor of the claimant, Rattan Lal, were upheld. The appellant/Insurance Company failed to prove its contentions, and the driver of the offending vehicle was found to possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident.

Criminal Law - Appellate Powers – Reappraisal of Evidence – Principles for Interference with Conviction – The Appellate Court has a duty to independently assess evidence and may substitute the findings of the Trial Court if it concludes differently on reassessment – Conviction cannot be upheld solely based on hostile witness testimonies unless corroborated by reliable and cogent evidence – [Paras 9-12].

Reliability of Witness Testimonies – Hostile Witnesses – Credibility – The Trial Court relied on the statements of witnesses who turned hostile or gave conflicting versions – Held: Statements of hostile witnesses can be relied upon only to the extent they corroborate the prosecution’s case – Where the evidence is unreliable or inconsistent, conviction cannot be sustained – [Paras 11-12, 20].

Recovery of Weapon – Admissibility and Evidentiary Value – Disclosure statements and recovery of weapons were relied upon by the Trial Court despite the absence of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports to link the weapons with the injuries – Held: Recovery alone, without forensic or corroborative evidence, is insufficient to establish guilt – [Paras 14-15].

Medical Evidence – Non-examination of Doctor – The Trial Court relied on the injury certificate without examining the doctor who issued it – Held: Non-examination of the medical expert prejudices the accused’s right to cross-examine and renders such evidence inadmissible – [Paras 15-16].

Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases – Reasonable Doubt – The prosecution failed to conclusively establish the appellant’s guilt, and the benefit of doubt must be given – Suspicion or conjecture cannot replace legal proof – [Paras 18-19].

Decision: The appeal (CRA No. 74/2013) filed by Ravinder Singh was allowed, and the conviction under Sections 324 and 325 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act was set aside. The appellant was acquitted of all charges.
The revision petition (CRR No. 20/2015) filed by the injured complainant, Chandu Ram, challenging the appellant’s acquittal under Section 307 RPC and the acquittal of co-accused Hari Singh, was dismissed.
The Trial Court’s reliance on hostile witnesses, absence of forensic evidence, and non-examination of the medical expert rendered the conviction unsustainable.
The appellant’s benefit of reasonable doubt was upheld, and the impugned judgment of conviction dated 29/11/2013 was quashed.
 

Labour Law - Limitation for Filing Appeal – Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 – Remedy of Appeal – Dismissal of Review Petition Does Not Extend Limitation Period – Appeal Barred by Limitation – The Act provides a statutory limitation period of 60 days for filing an appeal against an award – Filing of a review petition, which is not provided for under the Act, does not extend the limitation period – Held: Appeal filed beyond limitation period without justification is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation – [Paras 6-14].

Employees’ Compensation Act – Depositing Award Amount – Precondition for Appeal – The statutory requirement of depositing the award amount before filing an appeal was fulfilled by the appellant, but it was done after the prescribed limitation period – Held: Compliance with pre-deposit does not override the statutory limitation period for appeal – [Para 7].

Remedy of Review – Not Provided Under the Act – Misuse of Process – The appellant bypassed the remedy of appeal and opted for a review petition, which is not contemplated under the Employees’ Compensation Act – Held: Filing an unmaintainable review petition does not justify the delay in filing an appeal – Time consumed in pursuing a remedy not provided under the law cannot be excluded for calculating limitation – [Paras 10-13].

Doctrine of Bona Fide Litigation – Exclusion of Time – Filing of Review Application – The appellant failed to demonstrate that the time spent in filing and pursuing the review petition was bona fide or due to a genuine mistake – Held: Mere reliance on a review petition does not justify the exclusion of time for limitation purposes unless bona fide litigation is proven – [Paras 10-13].

Condonation of Delay – Limitation Cannot Be Extended Indefinitely – The appellant’s failure to act within the statutory limitation period and pursue the proper remedy was fatal to its case – Held: The appeal cannot be entertained, and the delay cannot be condoned in such circumstances – [Paras 13-14].

Decision:

Appeal Dismissed as Barred by Limitation: The appeal filed by United India Insurance Company Limited was dismissed for being filed beyond the statutory limitation period of 60 days as provided under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

Review Petition Not Maintainable: The appellant’s attempt to seek a review of the award instead of filing a timely appeal was held to be a misuse of process, as the Act does not provide for a review remedy.

No Condonation of Delay: The appellant failed to provide sufficient cause or establish bona fide litigation to justify the delay in filing the appeal.

Pre-Deposit Compliance Irrelevant to Limitation: The pre-deposit requirement under Section 30 of the Act was fulfilled, but it did not cure the delay in filing the appeal.