Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Evidence – Acquittal on Grounds of Insufficient Evidence – Appeal challenging conviction under Section 15(c) of NDPS Act – Appellant not apprehended at the spot, identified solely by a police witness – No independent corroboration or ownership link to the vehicle – Prosecution’s case had discrepancies in witness statements – No connection established between appellant and recovered contraband – High Court acquits appellant giving benefit of doubt. [Paras 1-23]

Identification and Independent Witnesses – Importance of Reliable Identification – Appellant identified by a single police witness with no prior acquaintance – Independent witness not examined, raising doubt on prosecution’s case – High Court holds lack of reliable identification and independent corroboration as crucial in acquitting the appellant. [Paras 18-22]

Evidence Law – Discrepancies in Prosecution Evidence – Material contradictions in statements of prosecution witnesses – Inconsistent testimonies regarding the location and manner of search and recovery – High Court emphasizes need for clear, corroborative evidence in NDPS cases – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant due to these discrepancies. [Paras 21-22]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellant – High Court sets aside conviction and sentence under Section 15(c) of NDPS Act – Orders immediate release of appellant if not required in any other case – Emphasizes strict adherence to evidence standards in criminal cases, especially under NDPS Act. [Para 23]

Service Law – Selection Process – Essential Qualifications – Petition against Tribunal's order setting aside selection of petitioner for Tutor (Bio-Informatics) – Petitioner selected despite not meeting essential qualifications as per advertisement – Tribunal found petitioner did not have required qualifications and set aside selection – High Court held PGIMER erred by considering petitioner's qualification without amending recruitment rules – Essential qualifications must be strictly adhered to – Selection process vitiated due to non-compliance with advertised qualifications – Petition dismissed, selection set aside. [Paras 1-22]

Recruitment Rules – Adherence to Qualifications – Importance of Strict Compliance – PGIMER considered M.Sc. in Bio-Informatics equivalent to advertised qualifications without amending recruitment rules – High Court emphasizes strict adherence to recruitment rules and qualifications mentioned in advertisement – Selecting authority cannot modify or relax qualifications during selection process – Selection of petitioner declared invalid for lacking essential qualifications. [Para 12]

Judicial Review – Arbitrary Selection Process – Tribunal's Jurisdiction – High Court upholds Tribunal's decision – Affirms that unsuccessful candidate can challenge selection if fundamental rules are violated – Tribunal justified in setting aside selection due to non-compliance with essential qualifications – Orders PGIMER to re-conduct selection process within two months. [Para 19]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – High Court dismisses petition challenging Tribunal's order – Directs PGIMER to re-conduct selection process adhering to prescribed qualifications – Ensures compliance with recruitment rules and fair selection process. [Para 22]

Service Law – Adverse Remarks in ACR – Quashing of Adverse Remarks – Petitioner, a judicial officer, challenged adverse remarks in ACR for 2010-11 and compulsory retirement – Adverse remarks included issues of integrity and conduct – Petitioner argued no material evidence or complaints to support adverse remarks – High Court found adverse remarks inconsistent with positive remarks on judgment quality and work quantity – No complaints substantiating integrity doubts – Adverse remarks quashed – High Court directed to reconsider representation on ACR. [Paras 1-46]

Judicial Review – Procedural Fairness – Recording of Reasons – High Court emphasized need for detailed reasons when rejecting representations against adverse ACR remarks – Noted absence of complaints or material evidence against petitioner – Ordered fresh decision on petitioner’s representation ensuring reasons are recorded – Reaffirmed importance of procedural fairness in administrative decisions affecting service careers. [Paras 39-45]

Decision – Reconsideration of Representation and Compulsory Retirement – High Court quashed adverse remarks in ACR and ordered fresh consideration of representation – Directed to reconsider order of compulsory retirement post ACR decision – Emphasized adherence to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness – Both writ petitions disposed of with directions for timely reconsideration. [Para 46]

Service Law – Disability – Entitlement to Salary and Allowances – Petition challenging order directing payment of salary and allowances to disabled employee – Respondent employee met with accident and became 100% disabled – Petitioner bank declared him disentitled for salary and allowances on “no work, no pay” principle – High Court held that under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, it is enough that disability was suffered during service, not necessarily during the course of duties – Court emphasized that beneficial legislation cannot be restrictively interpreted – Commissioner under the Act had jurisdiction to try the complaint – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Interpretation of Statute – Persons with Disabilities Act – Sections 47 and 62 – Section 47 prohibits dispensation or reduction in rank of an employee acquiring disability during service – Commissioner empowered under Section 62 to address complaints regarding deprivation of rights of disabled persons – High Court clarifies “during service” to include any disability suffered while employed, irrespective of whether it occurred during the performance of duties. [Paras 3-7]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Court dismisses petition challenging the order of the Commissioner – Upholds entitlement of the respondent to salary and allowances under Section 47 of the Act – Reiterates the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to adjudicate such matters – Affirms the principles of beneficial interpretation and protection of rights of persons with disabilities. [Paras 10-11]

Service Law – Departmental Actions – Multiple Writ Petitions – Petitioner ASI challenges multiple adverse departmental actions including stoppage of increments, adverse ACR entries, non-promotion, and compulsory retirement – Departmental inquiry exonerated petitioner of bribery charges, but punishing authority disagreed and imposed penalties – High Court finds procedural irregularities and mala fides in actions against petitioner – Orders of punishment and compulsory retirement set aside – Petitioner entitled to consequential benefits and arrears. [Paras 1-25]

Service Law – Punishing Authority’s Powers – Disagreement with Inquiry Officer – Held, punishing authority can differ with inquiry report but cannot collect independent evidence to disagree with findings – Such procedure found illegal and indicative of vindictive motives – Actions based on such disagreement without fair opportunity to petitioner quashed. [Para 15]

Service Law – Adverse ACR Entries – Challenge and Review – Petitioner’s ACR downgraded without notice or hearing – Integrity doubted based on uncorroborated complaints – High Court emphasizes independent assessment and unbiased review of ACR – Orders recording adverse remarks without proper procedure quashed. [Paras 17-19]

Decision – Quashing of Departmental Orders – High Court sets aside orders of punishment, adverse ACR entries, and compulsory retirement – Orders respondents to provide consequential benefits and arrears to petitioner – Emphasizes fairness in departmental proceedings and protection of employees from vindictive actions. [Paras 25-26]

Criminal Procedure – Recalling Witness – Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Petition challenging dismissal of application to recall witness – Trial court dismissed application citing delay – High Court held delay not attributable to petitioner due to later issuance of crucial bank communication – Clarification from Branch Manager essential to resolve material discrepancy – Dismissal of application found to be erroneous – High Court exercises inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow recall of witness – Orders of lower courts set aside. [Paras 1-14]

Evidence Law – Essential Witnesses – Application to Recall – High Court emphasizes importance of recalling witness to clarify critical financial error – Branch Manager’s testimony crucial for just decision – Courts must ensure fair trial by permitting rectification of such discrepancies – Exercise of Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be judicious and aimed at discovering truth. [Paras 6-10]

Decision – Quashing of Lower Courts' Orders – High Court quashes orders of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge – Allows application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling Branch Manager – Directs trial court to permit re-examination and cross-examination of witness – Reaffirms commitment to fair trial and just resolution. [Para 13-14]

Criminal Law – Pre-arrest Bail – Summoning as Additional Accused – Petition for anticipatory bail by additional accused summoned under Section 193 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners' names figured in FIR but were exonerated in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. – Trial court found active role and summoned them – High Court held trial court justified in summoning – For anticipatory bail, principles from Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case applied – Petitioners summoned for serious offence under Section 302 IPC – Reasonable apprehension of arrest on appearance – Plea for anticipatory bail within available parameters granted. [Paras 1-8]

Criminal Procedure – Summoning of Additional Accused – Section 193 Cr.P.C. empowers court to summon additional accused based on material accompanying Section 173 Cr.P.C. report – Summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires deposition of prosecution witness – High Court emphasizes no right to anticipatory bail but considers cooperation and non-defiance of law by accused – If additional accused willing to face trial, anticipatory bail can be granted subject to conditions. [Paras 7-8]

Decision – Grant of Anticipatory Bail – Court allows petition for anticipatory bail – Interim bail granted on 29.5.2015 made absolute – Petitioners to comply with conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. – Ensures balance between right to liberty and need for compliance with legal process. [Para 8]

Civil Procedure – Partition Suit – Appeal against dismissal of partition suit – Appellants claimed joint possession of property – Respondents asserted property already partitioned via family settlement – Respondents relied on appellants' written statement in an earlier suit acknowledging partition – High Court held appellants bound by earlier admission of partition – Written statement in previous proceedings considered conclusive unless proved fraudulent or coerced – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-14]

Evidence Law – Admissions – Sections 17 and 18 of Indian Evidence Act – Definition and relevance – Admissions are statements suggesting inference as to any fact in issue – Admissions by parties in previous proceedings binding unless proven to be result of fraud or undue influence – Appellants' admission of partition in previous suit upheld – No evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. [Paras 9-11]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – High Court upholds findings of lower courts – Confirms appellants' admission in prior written statement acknowledging partition – No substantial question of law warranting appeal survival – Both impugned judgments and decrees upheld – Appeal dismissed with costs. [Paras 13-14]

Parole – Temporary Release – Grounds for Parole – Petition challenging rejection of parole for solemnizing marriage of petitioner's daughters – Petitioner already availed four weeks parole for house repair – High Court holds that parole under Section 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 are independent and not conjointly restricted to four weeks per year – Petition allowed, order rejecting parole set aside – Authorities directed to reconsider parole application for marriage of daughters. [Paras 1-11]

Parole – Grounds for Temporary Release – Interpretation of Section 3 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 – Parole for marriage under Section 3(1)(b) and for house repair under Section 3(1)(d) to be counted separately – Periods not to be taken conjointly – Previous parole for house repair does not bar subsequent parole for marriage in the same year. [Para 9]

Decision – Grant of Parole – Court directs reconsideration of parole application for marriage of petitioner's daughters – Reiterates that both grounds for parole under Section 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(d) are separate – Urgency of matter emphasized with direction for immediate reconsideration. [Para 11]