Service Law - Dismissal without Inquiry – Rape Charges Against Teacher – Appeal against dismissal without inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India – Appellant, a teacher, accused of raping two minor girls – Dismissal from service without regular inquiry to prevent trauma and social stigma to minors – High Court upheld dismissal citing Division Bench judgment in 2012 (2) SCT 85, emphasizing protection of minors from further humiliation and trauma in departmental inquiries – Appeal dismissed. Held that the employer's decision was justified given the minors' age and potential trauma. The High Court's decision was upheld, emphasizing the need to protect minors from cross-examination in such sensitive cases​​.

Constitutional Law - Article 311(2)(b) – Application – Protection of minors' dignity in cases of sexual assault by educators – Departmental inquiry dispensed with to prevent further mental agony and social stigma to minor victims – Employer's decision to dismiss without inquiry upheld as valid under Article 311(2)(b) – High Court reiterated importance of safeguarding minor victims' well-being over procedural requirements​​.

Decision: Dismissal without departmental inquiry upheld – Appeal dismissed. The order of the Director School Education to dismiss the appellant teacher was deemed appropriate to prevent further trauma to the minor victims and to maintain the dignity of the educational institution​​.

Service Law – Dismissal from Service – Article 311(2)(b) Constitution of India – Sections 451, 354, 376B IPC – Rules 7.2(b) & 3 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 – Teacher accused of raping two minor students – Dismissal without regular inquiry – Apprehension of mental agony and social stigma to minors if subjected to cross-examination – Held: Justified in the interest of minors’ well-being and avoiding humiliation – Order of dismissal upheld. [Paras 1-16]

Protection of Minor Victims – Cross-Examination – Embarrassment and Trauma – Allegations against teacher involved moral turpitude – Protecting minors from further trauma and social stigma considered – Legal and administrative prudence in avoiding exposure of minors to cross-examination in departmental inquiries – Decision not to interfere with dismissal due to valid concerns of further victimization. [Paras 12-14]

Evidence and Influence – Witness Intimidation – Allegations of influencing witnesses leading to their hostility – Importance of protecting vulnerable witnesses from intimidation and undue influence – Decision to dispense with regular inquiry supported by evidence of threats and attempts to tamper with witnesses. [Paras 13, 15]

Decision – Dismissal Upheld – Appeal dismissed – Orders of the Single Judge and Director School Education upheld – No fault in dispensing with regular inquiry to protect minor victims – Principles of justice and sensitivity to minors’ trauma emphasized. [Paras 16]

Labour Law - Reference of Dispute Without Notice – Petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging order of reference to Labour Court – Reference made under Section 17(2) of the 1955 Act without notice to employer – Held, notice not required under Section 17(2) of the 1955 Act unlike the 1947 Act – Employer's petition dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Distinction Between 1955 Act and 1947 Act – Analysis – Section 17(2) of the 1955 Act does not mandate notice to the employer before making a reference to adjudicatory mechanism – Procedure under 1955 Act distinct from conciliatory procedure under 1947 Act – Reference based on 'question' regarding wages, not 'dispute' – Employer’s involvement begins only post-reference at adjudicatory stage. [Paras 9]

Employer’s Right to Hearing – Clarification – Employer entitled to hearing only during adjudication, not prior to reference – Government’s duty to refer wage-related questions to adjudicatory mechanism without employer’s pre-reference involvement – Employer’s challenge to lack of notice before reference untenable. [Paras 9]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court judgments and previous High Court decisions affirming procedural distinctions between the Acts – Reliance on inapplicable case (Jagran Parkashan Limited) deemed irrelevant to present context. [Para 10]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Reference order upheld – Employer’s requirement of notice before reference under 1955 Act rejected – Petition dismissed due to lack of merit. [Paras 11]

Criminal Procedure – Interlocutory Order – Travel Abroad – Sections 482, 397(2) Cr.P.C. – Petition for setting aside order declining permission to travel abroad – Order qualifies as interlocutory, barring revision under Section 397(2) – Petition under Section 482 maintainable – Petitioner a permanent resident of Australia, previously granted permission to travel – No genuine dispute on job offer – Conditions imposed for ensuring return – Petition allowed. [Para 4-5, 7-8]

Personal Liberty – Article 21 of Constitution – Right to Travel – Supreme Court precedents affirm right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty – Restrictions permissible only by procedure established by law – In matrimonial disputes, accused’s right to travel upheld with conditions ensuring presence in trial – Conditions imposed to balance right and trial requirements. [Para 6-7]

Decision – Order Set Aside – Permission to Travel Granted – Impugned order quashed – Petitioner permitted to travel to Australia for six months – Conditions imposed to ensure return and participation in trial – Petition disposed of. [Para 8-10]

Panchayati Raj - Notice for Gram Sabha Meetings – Appeal challenging resolution passed by Gram Sabha without giving seven days' clear notice – Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department upheld resolution – Single Judge dismissed writ petition – Held, participation without objection to improper notice deems mandatory notice requirement waived – Resolution upheld – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Legal Principles on Notice Requirements – Analysis – Statutory seven days' notice required for Gram Sabha meetings under Section 23 of the 1994 Act – Waiver principle applies if affected parties participate without raising objections – Subsequent resolution amended initial resolution, removing technicalities. [Paras 2, 14-15]

Competency of Gram Panchayat – Authority to change use of reserved land requires Government approval – Resolution for allotment of plots to landless workers as per policy dated 17.04.2001 upheld – Procedural compliance and policy adherence validated. [Paras 13, 16-17]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to earlier decisions affirming waiver of notice requirement if no objection is raised – Validity of resolutions passed with participation upheld. [Para 15]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Resolution passed with due quorum and subsequent amendment upheld – No infirmity in Single Judge’s order – Appeal devoid of merit, dismissed. [Paras 18-19]

Criminal Law - Sentencing - Probation – Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Respondent-accused released on probation for one year – Petitioner challenged the release on probation and sought compensation – Held, law extends indulgence to first-time offenders for non-heinous crimes – Reformative theory of sentencing emphasized – Courts must balance punitive and reformative aspects – Conviction upheld but probation granted considering no previous conviction and the nature of the offense – Revision petition dismissed. [Paras 1-14]

Reformative Theory of Sentencing – Analysis – Courts guided by principles laid down by the Supreme Court – Focus on reform and rehabilitation for first-time offenders – Factors considered include nature of the offense, background of the offender, and potential for reform – Sentencing must also consider societal interests and deterrence. [Paras 7-14]

Judicial Discretion in Sentencing – Held – Courts have broad discretion in sentencing but must exercise it judiciously – Sentencing decisions must be based on comprehensive assessment of various factors – In absence of legal errors or misuse of discretion, appellate courts should not interfere with lower court's decisions on probation. [Paras 8, 10, 11, 13]

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – No illegality, infirmity, or perversity found in the lower courts’ judgments – Probation appropriately granted – Revision petition against probation and compensation order dismissed. [Paras 13-14]

Service Law - Dismissal of Teacher - Allegations of Sexual Harassment – Writ Petition – Lecturer dismissed on charges of sexually exploiting female students – Regular departmental inquiry conducted by a retired Judicial Officer – No violation of natural justice found – Court upholds findings of disciplinary authorities – Sexual harassment by teacher condemned – Writ petition dismissed to protect the dignity of female students. [Paras 1-25]

Sexual Harassment and Natural Justice – Analysis – Held – Court adopts practical approach over technicalities – Detailed inquiry and multiple fact-finding reports substantiate charges – Teacher exploiting female students in educational setting highly condemnable – Allegations sufficiently proven – No reason to interfere with findings of inquiry officer or disciplinary authority. [Paras 23-25]

Decision – Dismissal Upheld – Petition dismissed – Teacher’s misconduct established through thorough inquiry – Protection of students’ dignity prioritized – No relief granted to petitioner. [Paras 25]

Service Law - Regularization of Non-Teaching Staff – Letters Patent Appeal – Non-teaching staff of PICTES sought regularization akin to teaching staff – Single Judge granted regularization and pay scale difference for 38 months – Government's denial based on financial constraints found arbitrary and discriminatory – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 1-16]

Equal Treatment – Analysis – Held – Denial of regularization to non-teaching staff when extended to teaching staff in the same department violates Article 14 – Government's argument of financial burden rejected – Instructions and decisions indicate non-teaching staff's demand was genuine and approved at higher levels – Discriminatory action not sustainable. [Paras 15-16]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Court upholds Single Judge's order for regularization of non-teaching staff – Decision to deny benefits based on untenable grounds – Appeals dismissed, civil miscellaneous applications disposed of. [Paras 16]

Landlord and Tenant Law - Perpetual Lease and Eviction – Revision petition challenging the maintainability of an eviction petition filed by a perpetual lessee – Held, perpetual lessee with rights akin to ownership can maintain an eviction petition under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 – Perpetual lease agreement confers rights similar to ownership, entitling lessee to seek eviction – Tenant’s petition dismissed. [Paras 1-3.16]

Rights of Perpetual Lessee – Analysis – Perpetual lease confers rights similar to ownership, including the right to receive rent and manage the property – Such lessee cannot be considered a mere tenant under Section 2(h) of the 1973 Act – Entitled to maintain eviction proceedings as landlord. [Paras 3.6-3.8]

Definition of Landlord and Tenant – Held – Landlord includes any person entitled to receive rent, whether on his own account or on behalf of others – Tenant defined expansively, excludes certain categories – Respondent, as perpetual lessee, falls within the definition of landlord, not tenant. [Paras 3.7-3.8]

Judicial Precedents – Consideration – Reference to Division Bench judgment in Paramjit Singh Walia vs. Jagdish Mitter and Supreme Court judgment in Sushil Kumar Mehta vs. Govind Ram Bohara – Upheld the right of perpetual lessee to initiate eviction proceedings. [Para 3.5, 3.9]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Perpetual lessee entitled to maintain eviction petition – No merit in tenant’s arguments – Findings of bona fide necessity of landlord upheld – Limited scope of revisional jurisdiction noted – Petition dismissed. [Paras 3.10-3.16]