Service Law - Employment Eligibility – Acquittal and Criminal Record – Rejection of Candidature Overturned - Petitioner’s application for Constable post was rejected citing pending criminal proceedings under Sections 323 and 143 IPC – Petitioner was acquitted before document verification, and the Court held that mere involvement in criminal proceedings without a conviction does not render a candidate unsuitable – Denial of employment for non-heinous charges was unjustified [Paras 1-10, 28-30].

Concealment of Criminal Record – No Evidence of Misrepresentation Found - The FIR against the petitioner was registered after the application date, and the petitioner disclosed it during document verification – Court found no willful concealment or misrepresentation – Misconduct allegation dismissed as unfounded [Paras 12-14].

Nature of Acquittal – Honorability Irrelevant in Employment Decisions - Respondents argued that the petitioner’s acquittal was not “honorable” – Court clarified that the criminal jurisprudence does not differentiate between “honorable” and other types of acquittals – All acquittals restore the presumption of innocence unless set aside in appeal [Paras 18-21].

Principle of Reintegration – Right to Employment for Acquitted Individuals - Rejection of candidacy undermines the reintegration of individuals acquitted of charges into society – Employment denial based on acquitted charges stigmatizes individuals and contravenes constitutional values [Para 22].

Decision: Petition allowed. Rejection order dated 13/12/2021 set aside. Respondents directed to issue the petitioner’s appointment letter within 30 days of receiving a copy of this judgment. Pending applications disposed of [Para 30].
 

Contract Law – Tender Process – Discharge of Tender – Eligibility Criteria – Petition under Article 226 challenging discharge of tender by respondent authority – Petitioner alleged fulfillment of eligibility criteria under clause 4.1.2 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), requiring five years' experience of owning and operating at least five functioning retail outlets of allopathic medicines – Respondent contended that petitioner failed to meet criteria as no single outlet had been continuously operational for five years – Held: Respondent's interpretation of eligibility clause upheld – Authority, as the author of tender, is best positioned to interpret terms – No mala fides or arbitrariness found in decision to discharge tender – Petition dismissed [Paras 6.1–6.5, 6.15–6.16].

Contract Law – "Letter of Intent" (LoI) – Binding Nature – Petitioner claimed LoI dated 05.08.2024 constituted a binding contract – Court held LoI issued under clause 31 of the NIT only indicated pre-acceptance of tender, not notification of award under clause 32 – No performance security furnished nor formal agreement executed as required – Communication from the Chief Medical Officer via personal email found irregular and non-binding – Held: No concluded contract existed – Respondent acted within rights to discharge tender [Paras 6.6–6.13].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review of Tender Decisions – Respondent authority discharged tender upon finding no bidder met eligibility criteria – Authority received multiple complaints and scrutinized documents before rejecting bids – Discretion to cancel tender vested in clause 30 of NIT – Court deferred to authority's decision in absence of arbitrariness, mala fides, or procedural irregularity – Held: Interpretation of tender terms by employer found reasonable and in line with the purpose of ensuring uninterrupted supply of medicines [Paras 6.3–6.5, 6.14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Discharge of tender upheld – No costs.
 

Custody of Minor – Interim Custody – Modification of Orders – Error Apparent on Record – The petitioner sought review of an earlier order granting interim custody of the minor child to the respondent, citing errors in considering the correctness of family court orders on custody. The court recognized a patent error in its earlier judgment where substantive issues regarding family court decisions were overlooked. – Held: The previous order granting custody rights was recalled due to an error apparent on record – Decision: Review petitions allowed, and original petitions listed for fresh hearing [Paras 8-10].

Principle of Estoppel – Acceptance of Benefits of Order – Inapplicability in Judicial Errors – The respondent argued that the petitioner, having acted upon the original order, was estopped from seeking a review. The court clarified that estoppel cannot prevent rectification of judicial errors, emphasizing equity and principles of good conscience. – Held: Judicial errors are subject to correction, and the doctrine of estoppel does not preclude review in such circumstances – Decision: Estoppel did not bar the petitioner’s review petition [Paras 10-13].

Interim Custody – Best Interest of the Child – Permissibility of Review Based on Changed Circumstances – Interim custody arrangements were deemed subject to modification based on subsequent developments. The court underscored that custody decisions must align with the child’s best interests and prevailing circumstances. – Held: Interim custody rights may be revisited as circumstances evolve – Decision: The earlier order was recalled to ensure a fair adjudication of the parties’ claims [Paras 13-15].

Decision: The review petitions were allowed, recalling the earlier order. The original petitions were directed for fresh consideration. The respondent was permitted to seek interim relief in subsequent proceedings if necessary.
 

Custodial Interrogation – Improper Authorization – Remand Orders Quashed - The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) sought custodial interrogation of the petitioner post-cognizance without adequate justification under Section 309 CrPC and Section 44 of PMLA – The Special Court authorized remand without recording reasons or ensuring procedural compliance – Held: Custodial interrogation unwarranted in absence of specific reasons or substantial evidence justifying remand [Paras 8-14, 25-27].
Habeas Corpus – Maintainability Against Judicial Remand – Special Court Criticized - Petition for writ of habeas corpus entertained as the judicial remand orders were passed without proper application of mind – Court emphasized that judicial officers under PMLA must act independently and not as an extension of investigating agencies [Paras 30-33].
Safeguarding Liberty – Article 21 Violated by Arbitrary Remand – Released Ordered - Repeated extensions of judicial custody violated constitutional safeguards under Article 21 – Held: Arbitrary remand orders negated fundamental rights, necessitating immediate release of the petitioner [Paras 35-39].
Decision: Petition allowed. All remand orders dated 05.10.2024 and successive judicial custody extensions quashed. Petitioner ordered to be released from judicial custody forthwith. Bail bonds remain intact for future proceedings [Paras 40-42].
 

Matrimonial Law – D.V. Act - Interim Maintenance – Determination of Husband’s Income – Domestic Violence Act – Wife sought an increase in interim maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month granted by the trial court for herself and the minor child, while the husband sought a reduction of the same. The trial court considered the husband's income to be ₹12,260/- per month along with an additional ₹200 per lecture and awarded maintenance accordingly – Held: The award of ₹10,000/- as interim maintenance is reasonable, considering the financial status of the husband, the socio-economic standard of the wife, and the expenses of the minor child. No interference is warranted in the trial court's findings [Paras 9-14].

Financial Status and Standards of Living – Wife's Entitlement – The wife is entitled to maintain a standard of living similar to that of the husband. Courts must ensure that maintenance is neither extravagant nor meager – Held: The interim maintenance awarded is consistent with the husband’s income and the wife’s reasonable requirements [Paras 11-12].

Wife’s Capacity to Earn – Impact on Maintenance – The husband argued that the wife holds an M.Com degree and is capable of earning, while the wife asserted she was not employed. Held: The wife is entitled to maintenance unless the husband conclusively proves her actual earnings. However, she is not entitled to live a life of idleness and is encouraged to seek employment [Paras 13-15].

Legal Principles on Maintenance – Applicability under Domestic Violence Act – The court relied on the principles laid down under Section 125 CrPC and precedents such as Kalyan Dey Chowdhary v. Rita Dey Chowdhary Nee Nandy and Rajnesh v. Neha to determine interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act – Held: Interim maintenance must be reasonable, ensuring the wife and child can maintain a standard of living consistent with the husband’s socio-economic status [Paras 10-12].

Rejection of Both Revisions – No Merits Found – The wife’s plea for enhanced maintenance and the husband’s plea for a reduction in the maintenance amount lacked merit – Held: The revisions were dismissed, and the trial court’s interim maintenance order was affirmed [Paras 14-16].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Petition Dismissed – Husband sought divorce alleging cruelty and desertion by wife – Alleged that the wife ill-treated him, was addicted to bad habits, and deserted him from 17/01/2020 – Evidence revealed inconsistencies in the husband's claims, including admissions of cohabitation for 85-90 days after the alleged date of desertion – Evidence further established that the husband had filed multiple petitions, including under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, without bona fide intention to reconcile – Held: No valid grounds for divorce made out; Family Court’s dismissal of the petition affirmed [Paras 10-15].

Conduct of the Appellant – Previous Marriages and Filing of Frivolous Petitions – Appellant admitted to three marriages and prior divorces, which supported the wife’s claim that the husband had a pattern of marrying and divorcing within short periods – Filing of a restitution petition followed by a divorce petition suggested an abuse of legal process to avoid liability under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Held: Husband’s conduct undermined his case, and vague allegations of cruelty were insufficient to grant divorce [Paras 12-14].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Bonafide Intention – Filing of a restitution petition without pursuing its execution indicated a lack of genuine effort to reconcile – Follow-up divorce petition within a short period of time further demonstrated that the restitution proceedings were used to avoid maintenance obligations – Held: Abuse of legal process noted [Paras 13-14].

No Evidence of Desertion or Cruelty – Evidence failed to substantiate claims of cruelty or willful desertion – Wife’s absence from proceedings did not absolve the appellant of the burden of proof – Sacred marital relationship should not be dissolved on vague and unsupported allegations – Held: Dismissal of the petition by Family Court upheld [Paras 14-15].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed with compensatory costs of ₹25,000 payable by the appellant to the respondent.
Judgment and decree dated 02/12/2023 passed by the Family Court, Shivamogga, in M.C. No. 116/2023 is affirmed.
 

Criminal Procedure – Expenses of Witnesses – Application under Sections 243(3) and 312 of Cr.P.C. – Petitioner sought reduction of travel expenses of PW.13, a Scientist, claiming they should be governed by the Karnataka Witness Expense Rules, 1967 – Held: The Rules are applicable only for payment by the Government and not for expenses imposed on accused persons – Sections 243(3) and 312 of Cr.P.C. allow courts discretion to determine reasonable expenses for witnesses summoned by the accused – Petition dismissed with costs [Paras 12-14].

Witness Expenses – Applicability of Karnataka Witness Expense Rules – Scientist from Autonomous Body – Karnataka Witness Expense Rules, 1967, found inapplicable to PW.13, a Scientist from C-DAC, an autonomous body under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Rules apply only to Government employees or complainants whose expenses are paid by the Government – Held: Discretion of Trial Court in determining reasonable expenses under Cr.P.C. provisions upheld [Paras 13-14].

Adjournments and Dilatory Tactics – Conduct of Petitioner – Adjournments sought repeatedly by the accused for cross-examination of PW.13, delaying trial since January 2024 – Held: Adjournments granted subject to payment of travel expenses cannot be contested by accused on grounds of Rules not applicable – Petition found to be an abuse of process, aimed at procrastinating trial – Costs imposed on petitioner to deter misuse of judicial process [Paras 15-17].

Abuse of Process – Failure to Cross-Examine Witness – Split Verdicts Not Permissible – Accused No.24, co-applicant in the application for reducing expenses, did not challenge the Trial Court’s order, rendering the petition unsustainable – Split verdicts on identical issues impermissible – Held: Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to District Legal Services Authority [Paras 15-17].

Decision:

The writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru Urban District. The Trial Court’s order requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 20,650/- as travel expenses of PW.13 was upheld, with a direction for compliance within 10 days. Non-compliance would forfeit the petitioner’s right to cross-examine PW.13, and failure to pay costs would result in recovery as arrears of land revenue.

Service Law - Judicial Conduct – Grant of Bail – Alleged Misconduct – Punishment Quashed - The petitioner, a judicial officer, faced disciplinary proceedings for granting bail in a second petition without awaiting the outcome of a transfer petition pending in the High Court – Inquiry found no evidence of corrupt motive or extraneous considerations – Court observed: The petitioner’s judicial decision, though contested, was reasoned and fell within the bounds of judicial discretion – Held: Punishment of compulsory retirement set aside; disciplinary proceedings invalid due to lack of substantive evidence [Paras 20–32].

Departmental Inquiry – Procedural Fairness – Rule 16 Violated – Serious Prejudice - Petitioner alleged procedural irregularities, including delay in furnishing documents and a lack of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses – Court found significant procedural lapses in the inquiry process under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, resulting in prejudice to the petitioner’s defense – Held: Inquiry and subsequent punishment unsustainable [Paras 35–40].

Judicial Independence – Protection Against Frivolous Allegations – Guiding Principles

Court emphasized that judicial officers must be protected from baseless allegations to ensure independent decision-making – Observed: Adverse judicial orders alone cannot form the basis of disciplinary action unless motivated by malice or impropriety – Highlighted the importance of robust evidence before initiating proceedings against judicial officers [Paras 45–50].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order of compulsory retirement quashed – Petitioner entitled to all consequential benefits – No order as to costs [Paras 51–55].

NDPS - Transfer of Investigation – Allegations of Bias and Procedural Irregularities – Investigation Ordered – Petitioner alleged false implication in an NDPS case and failure of the local police to preserve CCTV footage despite court orders – Court directed transfer of investigation to a senior police officer from another district, emphasizing the importance of impartiality and adherence to procedural mandates [Paras 10-14].

Non-Preservation of CCTV Footage – Breach of Supreme Court Guidelines – Responsibility Fixed – CCTV footage from Sultanpur Lodhi police station, crucial to proving illegal detention, was not preserved despite a specific trial court order – Court held this as a violation of Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh guidelines and directed departmental inquiry against the SHO and oversight committee [Paras 15-18].

Importance of CCTV Monitoring in Police Stations – Non-Compliance Addressed – Highlighting deficiencies in Punjab police’s compliance with Supreme Court directives on CCTV installation and footage retention, the Court ordered the DGP, Punjab, to file a comprehensive compliance affidavit addressing gaps in implementation [Paras 19-22].

Interim Bail – Granted Pending Investigation Transfer – Considering procedural lapses and false implication allegations, interim bail was granted to the petitioner with liberty to raise all defenses during trial [Paras 23-24].

Decision: The petition was allowed in part. The investigation of FIR No. 126 dated 20/06/2022 was transferred to a senior police officer from a neighboring district. Interim bail was granted to the petitioner and co-accused Mangat Ram. The court directed a departmental inquiry against officers responsible for non-preservation of CCTV footage and ordered the DGP, Punjab, to submit a compliance affidavit regarding CCTV surveillance implementation in police stations.