Service Law – Transfer and Posting – Higher Secondary School Teachers (HSST) – Petitioners challenged the orders of KAT regarding their transfers and postings – Contention of arbitrary and unreasonable transfers affecting their service conditions – High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, emphasizing the administrative prerogative in matters of transfer, provided it is not arbitrary or in violation of statutory provisions [Paras 1-25].
Administrative Discretion – Transfer Policy – Court reiterated the principle that transfers are a necessary incidence of service and the administrative authority has the discretion to transfer employees as per requirements – Any challenge to transfer orders must demonstrate malafide or violation of statutory norms [Paras 8-15].
Judicial Review – Scope and Limitation – Court limited its review to assessing if the transfer orders were issued with due adherence to policy and without malafide intent – Emphasized that the scope of judicial review does not extend to substituting the court’s decision for that of the administrative authority in matters of transfer unless clear illegality is shown [Paras 20-25].

Decision: Original petitions dismissed. Transfer orders upheld, and the petitioners directed to comply with the reassigned postings.
 

Transfer Policy – Interference by Tribunal – Assessment of Norms – Government formulated transfer policy to address teachers' grievances for posting in home stations, prioritizing teachers wishing to return to their home stations for at least five years – Tribunal's order in O.A.No.1019/2017 striking down total restriction on teachers from outstation transfer challenged – New norms evolved in 2019 giving preference to home station aspirants, but allowing options for outstation teachers based on seniority and service length – Tribunal's interference deemed unjustified as it overlooked Government's intent and procedural adherence [Paras 1-88].

Jurisdictional Issues – Review and Contempt Proceedings – Tribunal's orders in review applications and contempt proceedings in O.A.No.642/2022 criticized for lacking clear adjudication and reasoning – Orders in O.A.No.314/2024 setting aside transfer list on different grounds from O.A.No.642/2022 identified as jurisdictional error – Tribunal's decisions reviewed and reversed [Paras 4-68].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Representative Capacity – Addressing procedural difficulties in impleading all affected parties in transfer-related litigation – Emphasis on the need for procedural amendments to allow representative suits and departmental notices for effective litigation management [Paras 5-45].

Decision – Orders in review applications in O.A.No.642/2022 and transfer-related orders in O.A.No.314/2024 set aside – Government directed to reassess transfers giving due weightage to outstation service and seniority while prioritizing home station aspirants [Para 6-75].
 

Criminal Law – Gang Rape Conviction – Appellants convicted for abduction, gang rape, robbery, and wrongful confinement of the prosecutrix (PW1) – Trial court’s judgment upheld by the High Court – Emphasizing the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony and corroborative evidence from eyewitness PW2 – Application of stringent penal provisions under Section 376D of IPC [Paras 1-19, 31-32].

Evidence – Reliability of Sole Testimony – Supreme Court emphasizes that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if credible and trustworthy, is sufficient for conviction – Court rejects appellants' contentions regarding inconsistencies and discrepancies in testimonies [Paras 13-15, 20-21].

Sentencing – Consideration of Mitigating Factors – While affirming the convictions, Supreme Court considers the age of the appellants and their behavior during incarceration – Modifies sentences to balance interests of justice [Paras 32, 39-40].

Conspiracy – Application of Section 120B IPC – Supreme Court finds no independent evidence of conspiracy – Conviction under Section 120B set aside for A1 to A4 but upheld for other charges based on established evidence [Paras 26, 33].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentences modified – Appellants granted liberty to seek state government remission of sentence considering mitigating factors and time already served [Paras 39-40].

Joint Trial – Family Court Proceedings – Petitioner sought joint trial for efficiency and consistency in cases involving related issues of maintenance and return of articles – Family Court dismissed application citing different procedures for summary proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – High Court emphasized objective of speedy justice in family disputes – Joint trial ordered to save judicial time and ensure comprehensive resolution [Paras 1-9].

Legal Interpretation – Family Court’s Power – Division Bench referenced precedents allowing joint trials in family matters for integrated justice – Interpreted Family Court Act to support joint trials despite different procedural rules for related cases – Emphasized interpretation aligning with objectives of efficient and expedited family justice [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Family Court’s dismissal of joint trial application set aside – Joint trial of OP No. 2174/2020 and MC No. 86/2021 directed for unified adjudication of maintenance and related claims [Para 9].

Condonation of Delay – Matrimonial Appeal – Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 122 days delay in filing appeal against ex parte decree of dissolution of marriage – COVID-19 and family responsibilities cited as reasons for delay – Respondent remarried after expiry of appeal period – Delay not satisfactorily explained – Application dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Remarriage of Divorced Person – Bar under Section 15 applies only if appeal filed within limitation period – Respondent remarried after expiration of appeal period – Court holds bar not applicable – Appeal not filed within 90 days; remarriage on 26.05.2022 considered lawful [Paras 7-12].

Case References – Legal Precedents Cited – Cites Supreme Court decisions in Tejinder Kaur v. Gurmit Singh (1988) 2 SCC 90 and Krishnaveni Rai v. Pankaj Rai (2020) 11 SCC 253 – Highlights precedent on procedural obligations and conditions for remarriage post-divorce decree [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Interlocutory Application Dismissed – Delay in filing appeal not condoned – Court finds delay not satisfactorily explained and bar under Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act not applicable [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegations under multiple sections of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act – Petitioners accused Nos. 4 and 9 (paramour and her mother) – Alleged involvement in marital discord between accused No.1 and complainant – Examination of complaint reveals no substantial reference or foundation for offences against petitioners – Lack of evidence and ingredients for charges – FIR quashed for petitioners.

Section 498A IPC – Relative of Husband – Paramour not considered a relative – Charges under Section 498A IPC cannot be sustained against a paramour as they are not family members or relatives within the meaning of the section – Quashing justified on this ground alone [Paras 1-9].

Other Offences – Lack of Specific Allegations – Offences under Sections 323, 324, 307, 420, 504, 506 IPC require specific allegations – Complaint devoid of substantive charges against petitioners – Mere association or presence insufficient for framing charges [Paras 10-12].

Abuse of Process – Continuing Proceedings without Evidence – Continuation of proceedings against petitioners without foundational allegations constitutes abuse of legal process – Quashing necessary to prevent misuse of judicial process [Para 10].

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – Proceedings in Crime No.163/2022 quashed against petitioners – Findings limited to petitioners and not influencing trial of other accused [Para 12].

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Appellant convicted for the rape and murder of his niece, sustaining multiple injuries – Trial court’s judgment affirmed by High Court – Conviction set aside due to unreliable witness testimony, failure to collect DNA evidence, and improper handling of hostile witnesses – Lack of corroborative evidence to support presence of appellant at crime scene [Paras 1-60].

Hostile Witnesses – Handling and Reliability – Key witnesses, including the victim’s sister and maid servant, turned hostile – Court criticizes the prosecution’s inability to handle hostile witnesses and emphasizes the importance of reliable witness testimony – Evidence provided by hostile witnesses deemed insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 31-36].

Adverse Inference – DNA Evidence – Appellant refused to provide semen and pubic hair samples – Court examines the impact of this refusal under Section 114 of the Evidence Act – Concludes that in the absence of efforts to compel sample collection, adverse inference alone cannot substantiate guilt – Investigative failures noted [Paras 43-58].

Motive and Circumstantial Evidence – Alleged romantic relationship between appellant and deceased – Evidence of motive not sufficiently established – Court outlines principles of circumstantial evidence, highlighting gaps in the prosecution’s case and failure to conclusively link appellant to the crime [Paras 40-41].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges due to lack of conclusive evidence and procedural deficiencies – Ordered discharge from bail bond after six months [Para 59-62].
 

Consumer Protection Law – Setting Aside Ex-parte Orders – Petitioner, NTC Nidhi Ltd, was set ex-parte by the DCDRC for filing the version beyond the statutory period – Petitioner contended active participation in proceedings despite late filing – Supreme Court precedent supports participation rights even if declared ex-parte [Paras 2-6].

Right to Participate in Proceedings – Emphasis on participation despite procedural lapses – High Court set aside DCDRC’s orders, allowing petitioner to take part in proceedings, adduce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and present arguments – Version filed out of time not accepted on record [Paras 5-6].

Supreme Court Precedent – Cited ARN Infrastructure India Limited v. Hara Prasad Ghosh and Saint Gobian India Pvt. Ltd v. Deepak Achuthan, confirming participation rights in the interest of justice [Paras 5-6].

Decision:Original petitions allowed – DCDRC’s orders set aside – Petitioner permitted to participate in further proceedings, excluding the late version filing [Para 6].

Employment Law – Termination on Medical Grounds – Challenge to the order terminating a contractual driver on medical grounds without citing any misconduct – Court finds termination arbitrary and without basis in rules or regulations – University failed to accommodate the petitioner in an alternative role despite medical opinion deeming him fit for duty with due risk [Paras 1-16].

Contractual Terms – Application and Interpretation – Court holds that while termination clause permitted termination without reason, it must be applied in conjunction with overall objective and satisfactory performance criteria – University’s action deemed inconsistent with employment terms and objectives [Paras 10-12].

Compensation for Wrongful Termination – Consideration of subsequent events including employee’s death – Court directs payment of compensation to the widow in lieu of potential terminal benefits – Emphasis on providing equitable relief in public law proceedings [Paras 17-19].

Decision:

Appeal allowed to the extent of granting compensation – Termination order set aside – University directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the widow of the original petitioner within three months [Para 20].