Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Disproportionate Punishment – Doctrine of Proportionality – Article 14 – Petitioner, a Head Constable in CID, was punished with permanent forfeiture of two annual increments for not informing seniors promptly about the loss of a service animal – Inquiry established that petitioner was not responsible for the animal's disappearance – Held: There was only a minor lapse in timing of communication – The punishment was disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct – Modified from permanent to temporary forfeiture of two increments [Paras 6, 9-10].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Arbitrary and Excessive Penalty – Violation of Equality Clause – Citing Om Kumar v. Union of India and Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court reiterated that excessive or mechanical punishment without commensurate misconduct is violative of Article 14 – Court observed that State authorities acted mechanically and without justification in inflicting harsh penalty [Paras 7-8].

Administrative Law – Avoidance of Remand – Delay and Lapse of Time – Judicial Economy – Though normally the matter would be remanded to reconsider the quantum of punishment, the Court exercised discretion to modify punishment directly given the lapse of over two decades – Remand would only prolong litigation unnecessarily [Para 10].

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Punishment of forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect modified to temporary effect – Respondents directed to pay arrears arising from modified punishment within six months, failing which interest @7.5% p.a. will apply – Petition disposed of [Paras 10, 12-13].

Service Law – Medical Officers – Higher Studies – Sponsored DNB (Post MBBS) – Refusal of NOC – Discrimination – Article 14 – In-service Medical Officer of OMHS cadre denied NOC solely on ground of opting for Sponsored DNB – State policy dated 02.09.2022 distinguishing between Sponsored and Non-Sponsored DNB found arbitrary – No intelligible differentia established – Held: Denial of NOC violative of equality clause under Article 14 [Paras 19–24, 32–33, 39].

Education Law – Post Graduate Medical Admission – DNB (Post MBBS) – Sponsored Category – NBEMS Regulations – No distinction under NMC or NBEMS between Sponsored and Non-Sponsored DNB – State cannot create artificial classification inconsistent with central regulatory framework – Differential treatment of similarly situated in-service doctors impermissible [Paras 20–22, 31–33].

Service Rules – Study Leave – Odisha Service Code – Rule 179 – Applicability to Medical Officers – Rule 179 binding on State Government – State cannot deny benefit of study leave/NOC contrary to statutory service rules framed under Article 309 – Policy decision inconsistent with statutory rules unsustainable [Paras 8–10, 34–36].

Administrative Law – Policy Decision – Judicial Review – Limits – While State has discretion in service policy, such discretion subject to constitutional limitations – Policy dated 02.09.2022 lacked reasons for excluding Sponsored DNB – Reasons cannot be supplemented by affidavits – Decision must stand on reasons contained therein – Held: Policy clause refusing NOC for Sponsored DNB arbitrary and unreasonable [Paras 30–38].

Constitution of India – Equality before Law – Manifest Arbitrariness – Differential treatment of OMHS doctors opting for Sponsored DNB versus Non-Sponsored DNB – Both governed by same service conditions – No rational nexus with object sought to be achieved – Policy struck down as violative of Article 14 [Paras 22–24, 39].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – State directed to grant No Objection Certificate to petitioner to enable participation in Centralized Merit Based Counselling for Sponsored DNB (Post MBBS) 2025 – NOC to be issued by 02.01.2026 – Consequential participation in counselling permitted – No order as to costs [Para 40].

Goods and Services Tax – Appeal – Condonation of Delay – Petitioner filed appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act with a delay of six days beyond the statutory limit of 120 days – Appellate Authority rightly held it lacked jurisdiction to condone delay beyond prescribed period – High Court upheld finding that even discretionary extension is limited to 30 days beyond initial 3-month period [Paras 7–8.1]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction – Petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction seeking direction to condone delay rejected by appellate authority – High Court held powers under Article 226 cannot override express statutory bar on limitation – Reference made to Supreme Court’s ruling in Glaxo Smith Kline and ONGC cases – Legislative intent behind limitation provisions must be respected [Paras 9–14]

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability – Challenge to Order-in-Original not entertained – Court held petitioner had already availed statutory appellate remedy and cannot seek to reopen matter through writ petition in absence of jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice – No exceptional circumstances shown to justify bypassing of statutory mechanism [Para 16]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Delay of six days in filing appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act held uncondonable – Appellate Authority order upheld – Challenge to Order-in-Original not entertained in view of alternative remedy already pursued – No costs awarded [Para 17]

Civil Law – Appeal by Non-Party – Grant of Leave to Appeal – Section 96 CPC – Locus Standi – Application by a person who was not a party to the suit seeking leave to file first appeal against an ex parte decree for declaration of title and confirmation of possession – Held: Mere non-joinder as a party is not an absolute bar, but the applicant must establish that she is bound by or prejudicially affected by the decree – Non-party must show semblance of subsisting right over the suit property [Paras 5–6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference with Discretionary Order – District Judge granted leave to appeal by a cryptic and non-speaking order without proper reasoning – High Court held that supervisory jurisdiction can be exercised where the subordinate court fails to consider relevant legal parameters while granting leave to appeal to a non-party [Paras 3, 6].

Ex Parte Decree – Declaration of Title and Possession – Encroacher’s Claim – First Appellate Court relied on Amin’s report showing encroachment by the applicant prior to filing of suit – Held: Encroachment or assertion of an independent claim does not ipso facto make such person “adversely affected” by the decree – Such person had remedy either to seek impleadment in the suit or to file an independent suit [Paras 6–8].

Fraud Allegation – Knowledge of Suit – Effect – Applicant seeking leave to appeal did not plead lack of knowledge of pendency of suit – Allegation of fraud simpliciter insufficient to confer right to appeal against decree – Held: Absence of pleading showing binding effect of decree disentitles non-party from maintaining appeal [Para 8].

Decision: CMP allowed – Order dated 28.01.2020 granting leave to appeal set aside – Non-party cannot challenge the decree by way of appeal – Liberty reserved to seek appropriate independent legal remedy, if so advised.

Service Law – Conveyance Allowance – Orthopaedically Disabled Government Employee – Discriminatory Threshold – Petitioner challenged Clause (iii) of Rule 22(1) of the 2016 Rules prescribing 50% disability for orthopaedically handicapped persons with both upper and lower limb impairment to claim conveyance allowance – Court held that the classification lacked intelligible differentia and had no rational nexus with the object of the Act – Once benchmark disability of 40% is certified, no further sub-classification is permissible – Clause held to be ultra vires the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 8-20].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Hostile Discrimination – Benchmark Disability – Persons with 40% or more disability constitute a homogeneous class under the 2016 Act – State cannot create arbitrary distinctions within this group – Rejection of conveyance allowance to petitioner despite 40% certified disability held discriminatory and unconstitutional – Court read down the Rule to make all benchmark disabled employees eligible for the allowance [Paras 13, 15-20, 23].

Disability Rights – Rule Inconsistent with Central Legislation – Rule Subordinate to Statute – Clause (iii) of Rule 22(1) was found to be inconsistent with the definition of “person with benchmark disability” under the 2016 Act – No rationale shown by the State to fix a 50% threshold for grant of benefits – Rule read down to harmonize with Central enactment [Paras 13-20, 23].

Administrative Law – Medical Non-Recommendation Not Sustainable – Certificate Based on Invalid Rule – Medical authority’s rejection of claim was based solely on Rule 22(1)(iii), which has been declared unconstitutional – Thus, rejection of petitioner’s claim for allowance on its basis is unsustainable – Memo dated 30.04.2024 set aside [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed in part – Clause (iii) of Rule 22(1) read down – Petitioner held entitled to conveyance allowance under Rule 22 – Rejection Memo dated 30.04.2024 quashed – Respondents directed to pay allowance along with 8% interest within three months – Arrears restricted to 38 months prior to filing of petition [Paras 23-24].

Tenancy Law - Lease Agreement – Genuineness – Burden of Proof – Lease agreement (Ext-1) produced by plaintiff was alleged to be forged by defendants – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court found Ext-1 to be genuine, notarized, and bearing signatures of defendants – Defendants failed to depose or challenge their signatures and withheld best evidence – Held: Agreement validly executed and trustworthy – Alternative version (Ext-B) filed before GST authority held to be inadmissible being self-serving admission under Section 21 of Evidence Act [Paras 10–11].

Arrear Rent – Quantum and Interest – Once Ext-1 held genuine, monthly rent of ₹4,00,000/- (excluding GST) accepted – Arrears correctly calculated from April 2020 to February 2021 – However, as lease agreement did not specify rate of interest for default, interest of 12% awarded by Trial Court reduced to 7.5% per annum by High Court as per prevailing bank rate [Paras 12–13, 19].

Damages – Unauthorized Occupation – Penal Clause in Lease – Clause 25 of lease allowed damages at double the rent upon breach – Trial Court awarded ₹27,000/- per day as damages relying on this clause – High Court held such penal clauses are subject to Section 74 of Indian Contract Act – Courts must award reasonable compensation, not necessarily the penalty – Damages revised to 10% of monthly rent per month from March 2021 to September 2024 [Paras 14–18].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Defendants challenged that additional documents filed in appeal were not considered – High Court noted that documents (Ext-B and Ext-C) were formally admitted during second appeal by separate order dated 05.12.2025 – Hence, substantial question of law on this count became academic [Paras 8–9].

Appeal Outcome – Second Appeal partly allowed – Eviction decree and arrear rent upheld – Interest rate modified to 7.5% per annum – Damages reduced to 10% of monthly rent per month for unauthorized occupation – No order as to costs [Paras 19–20].

Matrimonial Law - Review – Divorce on ground of desertion – Limited correction of factual inaccuracy in appellate judgment – Held: factual clarification does not affect finding of desertion – review disposed of with modification of one paragraph only [Paras 1–12].

Review Jurisdiction – Scope – Article 227 Constitution read with Section 114 and Order XLVII CPC – Review not an appeal in disguise – Permissible only for error apparent on face of record, discovery of new evidence, or analogous sufficient reason – Re-appreciation of evidence or rehearing on merits impermissible [Paras 6–8].

Family Law – Divorce – Desertion – Appreciation of evidence – Finding of desertion based on cumulative conduct and totality of circumstances – Isolated or marginal factual error not sufficient to unsettle final conclusion on desertion [Paras 5, 8].

Error Apparent on Face of Record – Meaning – Must be patent and self-evident – Error requiring elaborate reasoning or capable of two views cannot be corrected in review – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedent reiterating narrow contours of review jurisdiction [Paras 7–8].

Correction of Judgment – Limited Modification – Appellate court acknowledged factual inaccuracy regarding prior intimation of wife’s relocation abroad – Paragraph 50(c) of earlier judgment modified to remove erroneous factual assertion – Clarified that such correction has no bearing on outcome of case [Paras 4, 8–9].

Effect of Review Order – Clarificatory – Modified paragraph to be read consistently throughout judgment under review – No reopening of findings or decree of divorce – Remaining grounds not pressed and found generic [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Review Petition disposed of – Limited modification made to paragraph 50(c) of judgment dated 22.09.2025 – No interference with decree of divorce – No order as to costs [Paras 11–12].

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Delay in Charge-sheet – Petitioner challenged two charge-sheets issued in 2019 and 2024 for alleged fraudulent medical reimbursements from 2010-2015 – Contended that unexplained delay of nearly a decade renders the action invalid – Held: Mere delay is not sufficient to quash disciplinary proceedings unless prejudice is shown – Considering seriousness of charges involving forged medical documents and misuse of public funds, proceedings are valid [Paras 5–17].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Double Jeopardy – Allegation that issuance of charge-sheets after earlier show cause notice amounts to double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution – Held: No prior punishment or prosecution initiated on basis of earlier documents – Hence, subsequent departmental proceedings do not violate Article 20(2) [Paras 18–22].

Departmental Enquiry – Validity of Multiple Charge-sheets – Second charge-sheet (2024) contained same allegations as first (2019) – Court noted no enquiry was conducted under 2019 charge-sheet – Held: Second charge-sheet presumed to supersede earlier – Enquiry to continue under 2024 charge-sheet – No illegality found [Paras 20–21].

Malafide Allegation – Petitioner claimed bias on part of respondent officer – Court found only vague assertions without supporting material – Held: Bald allegation of mala fide not sufficient to quash administrative action [Para 23].

Precedents – Delay in Initiating Proceedings – Petitioner relied on MP High Court decisions quashing delayed charge-sheets – Court distinguished them on facts – Held: No universal rule to quash charge-sheets solely due to delay – Each case must be decided based on gravity of charges and circumstances – Serious financial misconduct warrants enquiry [Paras 24–25].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Charge-sheet dated 12/12/2024 upheld – Respondents allowed to continue enquiry under said charge-sheet – Directed to conclude proceedings expeditiously – Interim relief stands vacated.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Non Bailable Warrants – NDPS Prosecution – Legality of Arrest Warrants – Proclaimed Offender Declaration – Petitioner not named in FIR but implicated through second disclosure of co-accused pharmacist – Initially placed in column No.2 of the charge-sheet – Non-bailable warrants issued by Magistrate and petitioner declared proclaimed person under Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Held: In absence of proper service of notice or summons, declaration of proclaimed person is illegal – Further held that Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to issue such warrants under Section 36-A(1)(b) NDPS Act at investigation stage – Impugned orders quashed subject to costs [Paras 1, 2, 5].

Criminal Law – Disclosure Statement – Evidentiary Value – Petitioner named only in co-accused’s custodial disclosure – Held: Disclosure of co-accused not substantive evidence – Cannot form basis for prosecution without independent corroboration – Reliance placed on settled precedent including Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [Paras 2, 5].

Criminal Procedure – Section 73 Cr.P.C. – Arrest Warrant for Aid of Investigation – Challenge to issuance of arrest warrant in absence of cognizance – Held: Warrants cannot be issued merely to aid investigation – Any such power must be exercised strictly as per law – Trial court’s action coram non judice [Para 2].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned orders dated 26.09.2023, 16.10.2023, 30.11.2023, 06.01.2024, 06.02.2024 and 28.03.2024 and all proceedings arising therefrom quashed – Petitioner directed to deposit Rs.5,00,000 as costs with four institutions – On compliance and appearance before Trial Court within 10 days, petitioner to be released on bail during trial – Protection from arrest for 10 days granted – Failing compliance, order stands recalled and petition deemed dismissed [Paras 5-7].