Criminal Law – Framing of Charge – Prima Facie Case – Land Fraud Allegation – Petitioners accused of securing illegal allotment of plot by suppressing material facts regarding existing allotment in husband’s name – Trial court refused discharge holding prima facie evidence existed – Held: At framing of charge, court need only examine whether allegations taken at face value disclose commission of offence – Accused cannot rely on defence documents or arguments at this stage – Discharge rightly rejected [Paras 5, 8-9, 11-12].

False Declaration – Allotment of Plot – IPC Sections 193/200/420 – Petitioner No. 2 submitted affidavit stating no prior allotment to her or her family – Investigation revealed husband had prior allotment under same scheme – Allegation that petitioner acted in connivance with officials to secure illegal allotment – Held: Suppression of fact and use of false affidavit justified charge-sheet – Matter to be tested during trial [Paras 3-4, 11].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference with Charge Framing – Revisional Court not to evaluate defence evidence or undertake meticulous scrutiny – Interference only if decision is perverse or patently illegal – No such finding in present case – Petition dismissed [Paras 10, 12].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Order framing charges upheld – Petitioners to face trial.

Service Law – Dismissal of Bank Officer – Alleged Fraudulent Bond Transaction – Disciplinary Proceedings – Judicial Review – Petitioner, a Chief Manager with an unblemished record, dismissed after internal disciplinary proceedings found him guilty of diverting ₹5,00,000 by issuing a false RBI Bond in the name of a customer – Petitioner claimed the act was a private financial arrangement made under personal duress and disclosed voluntarily – Enquiry found all charges proved and disciplinary authority imposed dismissal – Writ petition filed challenging the process and findings – Held: The petitioner’s explanation did not mitigate the breach of trust and fiduciary responsibility – Judicial review not warranted where enquiry was properly conducted – Voluntary disclosure does not absolve initial misconduct [Paras 1–4, 5–6, 59–62].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Procedural Fairness – Non-Supply of Documents – Competence of Disciplinary Authority – Alleged Bias – Petitioner alleged procedural lapses, including denial of documents and biased enquiry officer – Further claimed that show-cause and dismissal orders issued on the same day – Court held: Petitioner participated fully in proceedings, was given fair opportunity, and failed to show actual prejudice – No procedural impropriety of legal consequence established [Paras 5, 6, 13–15, 63].

Natural Justice – Right to Hearing – Appointing Authority’s Role – Audi Alteram Partem – Argument that appointing authority imposed penalty without affording hearing rejected – Court found petitioner had been heard and enquiry followed statutory procedure – Show cause opportunity, though brief, had been given – Principles of natural justice not violated [Paras 6–7, 71].

Punishment – Proportionality – Integrity of Banking System – No Financial Loss Not a Defence – Petitioner argued dismissal was disproportionate as there was no actual loss to the Bank – Court held that breach of integrity and concealment of private gain in the guise of official transaction were sufficient grounds for dismissal – Personal circumstances or restitution cannot mitigate deliberate misconduct in banking service – Regulation 14 applied, denying pension due to wilful misconduct involving fraud [Paras 8, 61–62, 66–75].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Reappreciation of Evidence Barred – Procedural Compliance Sufficient – Court reiterated limited scope of judicial review in departmental enquiries – Not to reweigh evidence or revisit conclusions absent perversity or violation of process – Enquiry officer and authorities acted within legal limits – Orders were reasoned and disclosed due application of mind [Paras 59–60, 64–65].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Disciplinary and appellate orders upheld – No grounds made out for interference under Article 226 – Petitioner’s conduct held to be fraudulent and in breach of banking ethics – Dismissal and denial of pension sustained [Paras 76–77].

Tax Law – CST Exemption – C Forms Mandatory – Industrial Unit claimed exemption under Assam Industrial Policy, 2008 – Exemption denied for 2010-11 on ground of failure to furnish mandatory “C Forms” under Section 8(4), CST Act – Petitioner argued that exemption under Section 8(5) can still be granted – Held: Section 8(5) is conditional upon compliance with Section 8(4) – Exemption rightly denied [Paras 12-14, 17]

Fiscal Interpretation – Strict Interpretation of Tax Statutes – Court reaffirmed settled principle that exemption provisions must be interpreted strictly in favour of Revenue – Eligibility certificate alone insufficient without fulfillment of statutory conditions – No vested right to exemption in absence of compliance with procedural norms [Paras 15-16]

Industrial Policy – Scope of Rebate – Petitioner relied on Industrial Policy and alleged assessment officer had recommended exemption – Revisional authority found even the allowed rebate exceeded legal limit – Held: Recommendation does not override statutory requirements – Rebate not permissible without C Forms [Paras 13, 14]

Precedents – Applicability – Reliance on decisions in Prism Cement, Techer Power Solution, Shree Digvijay Cement found misplaced – Court held cited cases were factually distinguishable – Present case lacked similar alternative provision for exemption without C Forms [Paras 17-20]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No exemption admissible under Section 8(5) of CST Act without fulfillment of declaration requirement under Section 8(4) – No interference warranted with orders passed by assessing and revisional authorities.

PIL - Wildlife Law – Possession of Ivory – Notification under Section 40(4) of Wild Life Protection Act – Gazette Publication Mandatory – State issued notifications permitting declaration of ivory articles by a film actor and granted ownership certificates – Notifications not published in the Official Gazette – Held: Power under Section 40(4) must be exercised strictly in the manner prescribed – Non-publication in the official gazette renders the notifications void ab initio – Subsequent ownership certificates issued are unenforceable in law [Paras 10-12, 14] –

Statutory Interpretation – Requirement of Gazette Notification – Cannot be waived – Court rejected State's contention that alternate publicity (press circulation and website posting) satisfies requirement – Held: In absence of official gazette publication, the notifications are non est – Relying on Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards v. Mandal Revenue Officer – Exercise of delegated power must strictly follow statutory prescription [Paras 11-12] –

Public Interest Litigation – Locus Standi – Maintainability upheld – Despite contentions of political or personal motive, Court held the writ petitions raised genuine questions about legality of executive action under the Wildlife Act – Petitioners had standing to question misuse of statutory powers [Para 13] –

Retrospective Regularisation – Not Permitted – Notifications held to be 'stillborn' and incapable of subsequent validation through belated gazette publication – De facto doctrine inapplicable to statutorily void acts [Paras 12, 14] –

Criminal Proceedings – No Interference – Though petitioners prayed for directions to expedite pending criminal proceedings against the actor, Court declined to interfere – Held: Criminal matters already pending and monitored; such relief not warranted in writ jurisdiction [Para 2] –

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Government Orders dated 16.12.2015 and 17.02.2016 and Ownership Certificates dated 16.01.2016 and 06.04.2016 quashed as void and unenforceable – State may issue fresh notification under Section 40(4) in accordance with law – No costs.

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 N.I. Act – Acquittal – Accused issued cheque for ₹3,20,000/- allegedly in discharge of debt – Cheque dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Trial court acquitted accused – Complainant failed to disclose date and details of loan transaction in complaint, statutory notice, and chief affidavit – In cross-examination, complainant admitted no documentation was obtained from accused and gave inconsistent dates – Held: Trial court’s view that complainant failed to prove existence of debt or liability was reasonable – Acquittal upheld [Paras 2-5, 9-11, 24]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 – Standard of Rebuttal – Accused need only rebut presumption by preponderance of probabilities – Evidence of past financial disputes between accused and complainant’s brother, threats from a third party and lack of source of funds shown – Held: Probable defence raised successfully – Presumption rebutted [Paras 12, 14-17, 22]

Appellate Powers – Appeal Against Acquittal – Reappreciation of Evidence – Court reaffirmed principles from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka – Held: Double presumption of innocence favours accused – If trial court’s view is reasonably possible, appellate court should not interfere – Acquittal maintained [Paras 23-24]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – No interference warranted [Para 24].

Right to Life – Protection of Married Couple – Honour-Based Threat – Petitioners, a married couple, alleged threat to life from petitioner No. 1's father and brother after entering into marriage of their own free will – Authorities failed to act on representation dated 19.10.2025 seeking protection – State counsel's response was non-committal regarding protection, deferring decision to discretion of SHO – Held: In matters involving threat to life, protection must be granted immediately on receipt of application – Delay or discretion at initial stage not permissible – Denial of protection amounts to violation of Article 21 – Any denial must be supported by detailed speaking order – Nodal Officer must act on same day upon receipt of application [Paras 1–6]

State Accountability – Failure to Provide Protection – Court held that protection cannot be delayed under pretext of inquiry or administrative procedure – Authorities shall be held liable for inaction if harm results from such delay – Duty to act swiftly especially in cases of matrimonial alliance against family wishes – Socio-economic context of honour-based violence recognized – Authorities must not hide behind bureaucracy to deny protection [Paras 3–5]

Decision: Petition allowed – Respondent No. 2 directed to provide protection and decide representation on same day by passing a speaking order.

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation Enhancement – Permanent Disability – Appellant, a lorry driver, suffered fracture and underwent surgery due to negligent driving by APSRTC bus – MACT awarded ₹36,000 – High Court found MACT failed to adequately consider future medical expenses, loss of income, and associated costs – Compensation enhanced to ₹90,000 with 7.5% interest – Held: Disability certificate absent, but evidence of surgery, insertion of screws, and future treatment justified reasonable enhancement [Paras 11, 18, 24–26].

Assessment of Compensation – Judicial Approach – Court relied on Supreme Court guidance in Baby Sakshi Greola, Kajal, Rajkumar, Yadava Kumar – Clarified that compensation is broader than mere damages – It must restore the claimant as closely as possible to pre-injury status – Held: Tribunal erred by not granting amounts under heads like future treatment, transportation, and attendant charges [Paras 19–20].

Liability – Hired Vehicle – Insurer’s Responsibility – APSRTC bus was hired from private owner and insured – High Court affirmed that insurance company (Respondent No. 3) remains liable to pay compensation as per settled legal position – No appeal by insurer, hence liability not contested [Paras 10, 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Compensation enhanced from ₹36,000 to ₹90,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from date of petition till realization – Respondent No. 3 (insurer) held liable to pay – Claimant permitted to withdraw the amount – No order as to costs.

Service Law – Seniority – Inter-Commissionerate Transfer (ICT) – Deputation followed by absorption – Impact on Seniority – Held: An ICT transfer is to be treated as a deputation until formally absorbed – Seniority is to be reckoned only from date of absorption in the new Commissionerate, not from date of deputation/joining – High Court upheld the CAT’s direction that transferred Inspectors are junior to promotees in the transferee Commissionerate – Circular No. 8/2011 and Rule 5(2) apply – Earlier position treating such transferred officers as seniors was contrary to rules – [Paras 5, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22]

Seniority – Direct Recruits vs Promotees vs Transferees – Rule Position – Inspectors who came on ICT and later absorbed cannot claim seniority over those promoted in the new cadre during the interim – High Court clarifies that ICT is not an open transfer but a deputation on request, governed by Rule 5(2) of the 2011 Circular – [Paras 12, 15, 18]

Absorption – Date of Absorption Crucial – Mere joining on ICT does not imply immediate absorption – Only formal absorption confers rights to seniority in the new unit – Seniority cannot be retrospectively counted from the date of initial joining – [Paras 10, 12, 18]

Final Decision: OPs Dismissed – Orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal affirmed – Petitioners not entitled to seniority over departmental promotees in the transferee Commissionerates – [Paras 20, 22]

Family Law - Custody of Minor – Welfare of Child – Preference of Child – Guardians and Wards Act – Custody Retained with Grandparents – Father (appellant) sought custody of minor son from maternal grandparents and uncle – Family Court dismissed the custody application while granting visitation rights – High Court found that child (aged 11) had been in continuous custody of maternal relatives since birth (except for ~3 months) – Interaction by trial court confirmed child did not recognize or prefer to stay with father – Held: Welfare of the child is paramount – Child’s settled surroundings, education, comfort, emotional bonding with grandparents support continuation of current custody [Paras 9–14]

Natural Guardian – Not Absolute Right – Positive Test Not Satisfied – Though father is natural guardian and not unfit, mere absence of disqualification is insufficient – Father failed to satisfy “positive test” of better suitability for child’s welfare as laid down in Nil Ratan Kundu – Grandparents shown to be financially stable, educated, and capable of providing a stable and nurturing environment [Paras 7, 11]

Preference of Minor – Section 17(3) of Guardians and Wards Act – Not Sole but Relevant Factor – Trial Court’s direct interaction revealed the child to be emotionally bonded with grandparents and unwilling to stay with father – Held: Preference of child must be respected where consistent with welfare, particularly for children old enough to form intelligent judgment [Paras 11, 13–14]

Compromise Agreement – Not Conclusive of Welfare – Earlier custody temporarily given to father by mutual agreement in 2017 – Child taken back by respondents shortly after – Family Court found no material to show continued bonding or advantage in restoring custody to father – Compromise agreement not determinative of current welfare needs [Para 12]

Visitation Rights – Expanded in Appeal – Periodic Vacation Custody Granted – High Court upheld Family Court’s order with expanded visitation – Father allowed to take child for outings during Puja, Winter and Summer vacations initially for 7 days, later extendable to 15 days with child’s concurrence – Travel plans to be shared with grandparents, who may accompany if child desires – Custody to remain with grandparents until child attains majority [Para 14]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Custody to remain with Respondent No.1 (maternal grandfather) – Father’s visitation rights expanded to include vacation trips with specified safeguards – No costs [Para 15]