Service Law – Promotion – Scheduled Caste Quota – Petitioners, SC constables, were promoted as Head Constables in 1990 from List C-I due to backlog of SC candidates – In 1998, show cause notices alleged promotion in excess of quota and proposed reversion – Petitioners’ promotions to ASI and SI entangled – Held, promotions were valid from List C-I to fill SC backlog – Rights constitutionally protected – Show cause notices and impugned report suffer from non-application of mind – Mandamus issued for petitioners’ promotion from date juniors were promoted. [Paras 1-9]

Promotion List and Quota – Analysis – Held – Petitioners were promoted from List C-I, not List C-II, to address SC backlog – Crucial entry in records confirms valid promotion from C-I – Show cause notices based on incorrect premise of excess promotion beyond 10% quota – Reasons in administrative orders must be germane; irrelevant considerations vitiate decisions – Reliance on Supreme Court principles regarding special rights of reserved categories. [Paras 6-8]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court quashes impugned report and show cause notices – Mandamus issued for promoting petitioners from date their juniors were promoted – All monetary benefits, seniority, and arrears to be granted as per law and policy on SC reservation in promotions. [Para 9]

Service Law – Dismissal of Tehsildar – Proportionality of Punishment – Petitioner, a Tehsildar, dismissed for sanctioning mutation of provincial corpus land to a Church without corruption allegations – Disciplinary proceedings questioned for delay and lack of bribe or corrupt practice charges – Held, dismissal excessive, lacked evidence of financial loss to Government – Principle of uberrima fides applied to quasi-judicial orders – Petitioner’s past and subsequent conduct considered – Court finds punishment of dismissal disproportionate to misconduct – Dismissal set aside, case remanded for reconsideration of appropriate punishment other than dismissal. [Paras 1-45]

Delay and Fairness in Disciplinary Action – Analysis – Held – Inquiry report submitted in 2003, dismissal order passed in 2012 without action for 9 years – Petitioner continued to serve satisfactorily during this period – Delay in action raises concern on fairness – No direct corruption or bribe charge substantiated in the charge-sheet – Disciplinary proceedings lacked adherence to principles of natural justice – Punishment appeared shockingly disproportionate. [Paras 1-16, 31-32]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court sets aside dismissal order dated March 14/15, 2012 – Orders reinstatement with all consequential benefits – Disciplinary authority directed to re-examine the case within two months for imposing an alternative punishment, ensuring a fair hearing – Provisional pension and arrears to be released in the interim. [Paras 43-45]

Labour Law – Recovery of Unpaid Wages – Persistent Litigation – Petitioners challenged recovery notices issued by Labour Commissioner, asserting they complied with the Labour Court’s award – Held, petitioners indulged in prolonged and unjustified litigation to avoid paying back wages – Labour Court’s award dated 4-12-2002 became final; petitioners’ attempts to deny financial benefits to workmen unjustified – Labour Commissioner rightly ordered recovery of unpaid dues – Petitioners’ approach criticized for causing harassment and wasting public resources – Writ petitions dismissed with costs. [Paras 1-34]

Prolonged Litigation and Employer’s Duty – Analysis – Held – Petitioners failed to implement the Labour Court’s award in letter and spirit, despite judgments from High Court and Supreme Court – Petitioners’ actions aimed at denying back wages through procedural manipulation and unjustified orders – Model employer’s duty to treat employees fairly disregarded – Repeated litigation against economically weaker workmen criticized. [Paras 18-27]

Decision – Dismissing Writ Petitions with Costs – Court dismisses writ petitions with costs of ₹50,000 each – Petitioners directed to comply with Labour Court’s award and pay all dues within two months – Managing Director of petitioner-corporation given liberty to recover litigation costs from erring officials through a fact-finding enquiry. [Paras 32-34]

Industrial Disputes – Dismissal of Workman – Natural Justice – Compensation – Workman was a Head Watchman at the university – Granted three days casual leave, but did not report back – Applications for extension of leave and sick leave submitted by a relative – University did not approve leave extensions and declared the post vacant – Labour Court ordered reinstatement with continuity and full back wages – Held, University did not conduct an enquiry or provide notice or retrenchment compensation – Violation of principles of natural justice and Section 25F – Labour Court's finding upheld but modified to grant lump sum compensation of ₹3 lakh to legal heirs as the workman had expired. [Paras 1-14]

Unauthorized Absence and Procedural Fairness – Analysis – Held – Employer must comply with principles of natural justice before terminating services for unauthorized absence – Failure to hold an enquiry or serve proper notices contravenes statutory and procedural fairness – Supreme Court’s stance against arbitrary termination reiterated – Labour Court's decision justified but modified in view of long delay and subsequent death of workman. [Paras 9-10]

Decision – Modifying Labour Court’s Award – Petition partly allowed – Instead of reinstatement, lump sum compensation of ₹3 lakh awarded to legal heirs of deceased workman – Compensation to be paid within eight weeks or carry 8% interest per annum – Compliance with Section 17(b) acknowledged, last wages paid until superannuation. [Paras 13-15]

Service Law – Termination Without Enquiry – Lecturer – Petitioner, a lecturer in Military Science, was terminated by the college management for alleged willful long absence from duty – Termination order passed without conducting a regular departmental enquiry – Management argued no enquiry needed as termination was during probation period – Held, termination stigmatic in nature required a regular departmental enquiry – Management acted arbitrarily – All orders related to termination set aside – Petitioner directed to be reinstated. [Paras 1-17]

Departmental Enquiry and Stigmatic Termination – Analysis – Held – Even during probation, termination orders that are stigmatic require a regular enquiry – Mandatory provisions under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act not followed – No approval sought from Director of Higher Education before termination – Impugned orders non-speaking and arbitrary – Appeal orders also non-speaking and cryptic. [Paras 7-10]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court quashes termination and appellate orders – Directs reinstatement of petitioner with all consequential service benefits – Orders management to comply within three months. [Paras 16-18]

Constitutional Law – Compensation for False Criminal Case – Petitioner’s daughter raped and murdered – Petitioner wrongfully arrested and prosecuted for rape and murder of his own daughter – Acquitted by Criminal Court – CBI investigation revealed improper investigation by police – Malice inferred from circumstances and official interference – Held, petitioner entitled to compensation for wrongful prosecution and harassment – State directed to pay Rs. 5 lakh compensation with interest – State may recover amount from responsible police officials. [Paras 1-7]

Wrongful Prosecution – Malice and Harassment – Analysis – Held – CBI investigation indicated police conducted improper investigation, failing to interrogate suspects or collect evidence – Petitioner wrongfully implicated, suffering severe harassment – High Court’s earlier findings and CBI report corroborate malicious prosecution – Compensation of Rs. 5 lakh awarded to petitioner for wrongful arrest, detention, and prosecution. [Paras 6-7]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court awards Rs. 5 lakh compensation with 9% interest from date of petition – State may recover amount from responsible officials – Costs of Rs. 10,000 awarded to petitioner – Compensation to be paid within 4 weeks. [Paras 7-8]

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Appeal against conviction under Section 304-B IPC – Complainant alleged that appellants (husband and his brothers) killed his daughter for dowry – Witness who informed complainant turned hostile – Trial court convicted all appellants for dowry death – High Court finds no evidence of dowry demand soon before death – Bald statements of complainant and wife not supported by time specifics – Conviction of husband altered to Section 306 IPC, sentence reduced to 5 years RI with fine – Acquittal of husband's brothers due to vague allegations. [Paras 1-9]

Evidence – Dowry Demand – Interpretation – Conviction under Section 304-B IPC requires proof of dowry demand soon before death – Bald statements without specifics insufficient – High Court reclassifies case under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide due to lack of dowry evidence – Vague allegations against husband's brothers lead to their acquittal. [Paras 5-8]

Decision – Partial Allowance of Appeal – Court acquits appellants Nos. 1 and 3 due to lack of specific allegations – Conviction of appellant No. 2 (husband) altered to Section 306 IPC, sentence reduced – Emphasizes importance of specific evidence for dowry death conviction. [Paras 8-9]

Civil Procedure – Appellate Court’s Powers – Will and Inheritance – Decedent executed a Will dated 20.05.1999, registered on 10.06.1999, bequeathing property to his wife, son, and grandson – His wife and daughter challenged the Will, claiming they did not receive any share – During litigation, wife passed away and purportedly left another Will dated 05.09.2005 in favor of appellant-granddaughter – Trial Court upheld the Will of 1999 as genuine – Lower Appellate Court confirmed, finding no proof of 2005 Will – Held, Lower Appellate Court correctly invoked Order 41 Rule 33 CPC – Certified copy of 2005 Will not sufficient without secondary evidence – Appellants entitled to shares as per 1999 Will. [Paras 1-33]

Proof and Secondary Evidence – Analysis – Held – Certified copy of Will dated 05.09.2005 was produced without original or secondary evidence – Mere exhibition does not constitute proof – No application for leading secondary evidence filed by appellants – Lower Appellate Court rightly rejected 2005 Will – 1999 Will proved through attesting witnesses and in accordance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act – No suspicious circumstances found around 1999 Will. [Paras 31-32]

Decision – Dismissing Appeal – Court finds no fault with Lower Appellate Court’s findings – Will dated 05.09.2005 not proved, while 1999 Will upheld – Appellants entitled to shares as per 1999 Will – No substantial question of law arises – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 34-35]

Motor Vehicles Law – Compensation – Liability of Registered Owner – Held, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 provides that the Tribunal, upon an application filed under Section 166 claiming compensation, may make an award determining the compensation amount, specifying the person(s) to whom it shall be paid, and who (insurer, owner, or driver) shall pay it. In cases where the vehicle is not insured, the owner or driver shall be liable for the awarded amount. The term "owner" as defined in Section 2(30) means the person in whose name the vehicle is registered. Section 50 details the legal requirements for transferring ownership. Thus, the registered owner is liable until the transfer is recorded by the Registering Authority – [Paras 8, 9]​​.

Ownership – Transfer and Registration – Held, ownership transfer is effective only when statutory requirements are fulfilled and the Registering Authority updates the records. On the accident day, the appellant remained the registered owner, making him liable for compensation despite the vehicle's sale – [Para 10]​​.

Liability of Registered Owner – Precedent – The appellant's liability persists as his name remained on the Registering Authority's records. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. and P.P. Mohammed v. K. Rajappan&Ors., affirm that registered owners are liable to third parties even after selling the vehicle until official record changes are made – [Para 10]​​.