Promotion and Disciplinary Proceedings – Petitioner’s Promotion and Suspension – The petitioner, originally a Forest Ranger, was promoted to Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF) on an ad hoc basis under a departmental notification dated 26.09.2018 – He was assigned as In-Charge of Kuldiha Wildlife Range, Balasore Wildlife Division – Subsequently, a Memorandum of Charge dated 17.10.2019 was issued against him alleging negligence in duty, suppression of facts, and disobedience to superiors – Following this, the petitioner was suspended on 20.02.2020 under Rule 12 of the OCS (CCA) Rules due to the severity of the allegations.

Misconduct and Integrity Issues – Charges and Criminal Case – While under suspension, the petitioner received another Memorandum dated 19.11.2020 alleging failure to maintain integrity and duty dereliction – A criminal case (Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.13 of 2020) under the Prevention of Corruption Act was also initiated – The Review Committee, considering the ongoing departmental proceedings, found the petitioner’s continued service against public interest due to integrity concerns, ultimately recommending premature retirement as per Rule 71 of the OSC.

Rule 71(a) OSC and Review Committee’s Recommendation – The Review Committee, as per the OSC Guidelines, concluded that the petitioner’s actions amounted to conduct unbecoming of a government servant, deeming his retirement necessary to preserve public confidence and service efficiency – The committee cited the petitioner’s history of allegations, including his failure to prevent wildlife poaching in his jurisdiction, as justification for retirement on grounds of public interest.

Scope of Judicial Review – Compulsory Retirement Decisions – Judicial Deference Required - The courts exercising judicial review must not substitute their judgment for that of the Review Committee and should only intervene if the committee's decision is found to be arbitrary or irrational. This was affirmed in Syed T.A. Naqshbandi v. State of J&K, which emphasized the difficulty of judicial review in administrative decisions concerning service evaluations. The discretion exercised by the committee is presumed to be based on a comprehensive evaluation of multiple factors relevant to public interest, and only egregious instances warrant intervention [Paras 10-10.1].

Public Interest and Integrity Assessment – Rule 71 of the OSC – Premature Retirement Justified - Rule 71 of the OSC permits the premature retirement of an employee after 30 years of service or upon reaching the age of 50, emphasizing the public interest rather than punitive measures. Compulsory retirement under this rule does not equate to a penalty, allowing the authority to act in public interest without the stigma typically associated with dismissal or major penalties. Thus, the Review Committee's discretion in recommending premature retirement based on service record evaluation is upheld as lawful and justified [Paras 11-11.2].

Disciplinary Proceedings and Judicial Consideration – The interaction of disciplinary proceedings and premature retirement - The court found that the pendency of departmental or criminal proceedings does not preclude the invocation of Rule 71 for retirement if it serves public interest. The petitioner’s assertions regarding the need for completion of departmental inquiries before invoking retirement were dismissed as the committee's decision was deemed within their evaluative jurisdiction, especially when integrity was questioned [Paras 12.1-12.9].

Evaluation of Integrity – Detriment to Public Service - The Review Committee concluded that the petitioner’s continued service posed a potential detriment to public interest, citing concerns of integrity based on allegations of misconduct and failure in duty. As articulated in various precedents, integrity forms a fundamental criterion in assessing a public servant's suitability for continued service, thus the decision to retire the petitioner was consistent with established principles of public service conduct and the OSC [Paras 12.20-12.23].

Conclusion – Review Committee's Decision Upheld - The court upheld the Review Committee’s recommendation for the petitioner’s premature retirement under Rule 71 of the OSC, dismissing the petition on grounds of procedural correctness and substantive legality. The judgment reiterated that the lack of specific adverse remarks does not invalidate the committee’s assessment of integrity, nor does it imply procedural impropriety in recommending retirement, as public interest remains the paramount consideration [Paras 18-21].
 

Administrative Orders and Statutory Provisions – Supremacy of Law – The petitioner challenged the validity of various administrative memoranda that penalized her for participating in a strike. The Court held that statutory provisions and regulations must prevail over executive orders. Any administrative order conflicting with statutory law and regulations is ultra vires and must be set aside [Paras 22-26, 37-38].

Natural Justice – Right to be Heard – The petitioner was penalized without being given an opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that disciplinary actions must follow the due process prescribed by relevant statutes and regulations, ensuring fair treatment [Paras 34, 38].

Equality Before Law – Discrimination – The petitioner argued that she was unfairly discriminated against compared to other employees who were granted special casual leave for attending work during the strike. The Court found this discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, underscoring the need for equal treatment [Paras 39-40].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – The impugned memoranda and the disciplinary actions taken against the petitioner were set aside. The Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all service benefits accrued during her absence and comply with statutory regulations [Paras 43].
 

Partition Suit – Interpretation of Will – Inconsistency in Clauses – Plaintiffs sought partition of the property based on a Will and Codicil. The Will’s Clauses 6 and 10 had inconsistencies regarding the distribution of the property. The Court held that as per Section 88 of the Indian Succession Act, the later clauses (7 and 10) in the Will would prevail over the earlier clause (6). The plaintiffs were not entitled to an equal 1/3^rd share as claimed but were entitled to a share proportional to the superstructure allotted to them [Paras 24-28].

Codicil – Clarification of Will – The Codicil executed by the testatrix clarified typographical errors in the Will, particularly regarding the allocation of portions of the property to the heirs. The Court held that the testatrix’s intention was clearly expressed in the Codicil, which further supported the interpretation of the later clauses of the Will [Paras 23, 27].

Preliminary Decree – Insufficient Information – The Court noted that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient details about the constructed areas to ascertain their exact share in the land. Hence, a preliminary decree could not be granted based on the available materials. The plaintiffs were given liberty to file a fresh suit with detailed particulars [Paras 29-30].

Limitation – Right to Seek Partition – The Court held that the right to seek partition is continuous and thus, the suit was not barred by limitation [Para 31].

Decision: Suit dismissed with liberty to plaintiffs to institute a fresh suit for partition with detailed particulars of the constructed areas. No order as to costs [Para 32].

Income Tax – Unexplained Cash Deposits – Appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the source of Rs. 47,30,000/- deposited in his bank account – Claimed cash belonged to Kana Ram, who sold an immovable property but had no bank account – Kana Ram’s contrary statement led to the addition of Rs. 34,50,000/- as income – Tribunal and lower authorities upheld the addition – Appeal dismissed – Court found no substantial question of law [Paras 1-10].

Burden of Proof – Onus on Assessee – Appellant’s explanation deemed insufficient – Kana Ram’s lack of tax returns or proof of immovable property sale contributed to the decision – Reliance on earlier judgments regarding unexplained investments and cash credits [Paras 4-7].

Concurrent Findings – No interference required – Both appellate authorities’ decisions consistent – No substantial question of law identified [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of appellate authorities upheld.

Jurisdiction – Commercial Courts – Execution of Arbitral Award – Petitioners contested the execution of an arbitral award by the Learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari, claiming that the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court due to pecuniary limits. The Principal District Judge’s decision was challenged, citing the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which specifies that only the Commercial Court can handle execution petitions for amounts above the set pecuniary limit [Paras 1-13].

Commercial Courts Act – Amendment and Pecuniary Jurisdiction – The court noted that the pecuniary jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act was amended in 2018, reducing the limit from Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-. Consequently, the execution petition should be handled by the Commercial Court at Visakhapatnam, as the amount involved was Rs. 46,46,965/-, which is above the amended limit [Paras 7, 13].

Principal District Judge’s Authority – Arbitral Awards – The Principal District Judge, East Godavari District, was deemed to lack jurisdiction to handle the execution petition following the 2018 amendment. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction now lies with the Commercial Court in matters exceeding Rs. 3,00,000/- [Paras 9-12].

Stay of Judgment and Impact on Current Proceedings – Although the petitioners’ relied upon a Division Bench judgment, the Supreme Court had stayed this judgment. However, the stay did not nullify the principles established, which continue to apply to similar cases unless suspended [Para 15].

Decision – Petition Allowed – The proceedings before the Learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari, were set aside. The respondent was granted leave to transfer the execution petition to the Commercial Court at Visakhapatnam or file a fresh execution petition in the appropriate court [Para 16].

Urban Development – Unauthorized Construction – Petitioners challenged provisional orders for demolition of buildings constructed on leased land – Claimed construction followed legal requirements and sought regularization – Court directed authorities to follow due process, consider petitioners’ explanations, and provide fair hearing – Emphasized demolition only if public interest or safety is affected [Paras 1-55].

Administrative Law – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioners argued respondent authorities acted arbitrarily, without proper enquiry or opportunity for hearing – Court reinforced requirement for due process and fair hearing in administrative actions – Directed authorities to objectively verify records and consider explanations before proceeding [Paras 52-55].

Decision – Writ Petitions Disposed – Held – Respondent authorities must follow due procedure in accordance with law – Petitioners permitted to submit additional explanations – No coercive steps to be taken during pending proceedings – Authorities to ensure fair and objective decision-making [Para 55].

Criminal Law – Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 498-A IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act – Appellants sought discharge on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction, contending harassment occurred in Kurnool, not Visakhapatnam – Special Judge found continuous offence and dismissed discharge petitions – High Court affirmed, stating no merit in jurisdictional argument as alleged offence was continuing – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-16].

Discharge of Accused – Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Grounds for Discharge – Insufficient Evidence – Appellant in Crl.A.No.318 of 2024 argued no allegations against her in charge sheet or witness statements – High Court upheld dismissal of discharge petitions, emphasizing charge sheet and statements revealed sufficient material against all appellants – No basis for discharge [Paras 11-14].

Decision: Criminal Appeals dismissed – Orders by Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under SC & ST (POA) Act, Visakhapatnam, upheld – No merit found in appeals [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Gang Rape – Appellants convicted under Sections 376-D/34 and 376-DA/34 IPC, and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 – Sentenced to life imprisonment and fines – Trial Court’s decision based on victim’s testimony and forensic evidence – Appeals challenge credibility of victim and adequacy of medical evidence [Paras 1-12].

Credibility of Victim’s Testimony – Victim’s deposition inconsistent – Victim admitted not knowing appellants prior to incident, raising doubts on her ability to identify perpetrators – Lack of corroborative evidence and discrepancies in victim’s statements undermine prosecution case [Paras 13-19].

Medical Evidence – No injuries found on victim’s body – Hymen intact – Forensic evidence inconclusive as appellants were not medically examined, violating Cr.P.C. Section 53A – Lapse in forensic procedures critical in undermining prosecution case [Paras 20-23].

Investigation Lapses – Investigating Officer failed to conduct thorough investigation – No independent witnesses examined – Failure to medically examine appellants and gather comprehensive forensic evidence noted as major investigative lapses [Paras 24-28].

Defense Arguments – Appellants argue false implication due to personal enmity – Defense highlights inconsistencies in prosecution’s case and victim’s testimony – Defense’s narrative of victim’s father’s motives considered plausible [Paras 29-36].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case [Paras 46-49].

Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentencing – Appellants challenged the conviction under Sections 307, 324, 34 RPC, and Section 4/25 Arms Act – Conviction under Section 307 RPC reduced from seven years to three years, other sentences upheld – Conviction under Section 4/25 Arms Act set aside due to lack of evidence regarding weapon dimensions – Appellants directed to surrender within 15 days [Paras 1-35].

Eyewitness Testimony – Contradictions and Reliability – Minor inconsistencies in witness statements regarding weapon types and sequence of events – Held not sufficient to discredit the overall prosecution case – Testimony of injured and eyewitnesses considered reliable – Supreme Court principles on ocular evidence and injured witness reliability applied [Paras 8-22].

Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Admissibility issues – Weapons produced by accused, not recovered through disclosure – Held inadmissible but did not affect overall conviction due to strong eyewitness testimony – Supreme Court precedents on recovery of weapons cited [Paras 23-24].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability – Benefit under Section 4 denied – Offence under Section 307 RPC punishable with life imprisonment, thus not eligible for probation – Supreme Court precedent on probation applicability referenced [Paras 30-32].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Section 307/34 and 324/34 RPC upheld with reduced sentence – Conviction under Section 4/25 Arms Act set aside – Appellants directed to surrender for sentence execution – Trial court record and judgment copy sent back [Paras 34-35].