Condonation of Delay – Interlocutory Application filed for condonation of delay of 239 days in filing the appeal – Appellant claimed financial hardship prevented timely filing – Court found delay unintentional and condoned it [Paras 1-6].

Disciplinary Action – Dismissal from Service – Appellant dismissed for misappropriating funds from deceased/inoperative accounts – Charges included unauthorized crediting of pension funds to own and relatives’ accounts, and unauthorized withdrawals from inoperative accounts – Alleged financial crisis as reason for delay – Court noted serious breach of trust and upheld the disciplinary actions [Paras 7-14].

Judicial Review – Proportionality of Punishment – Cited Supreme Court precedents on interference with disproportionate punishment – Reference to cases like Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar – Held that the punishment of dismissal was appropriate given the severity of misconduct – Importance of maintaining public trust in financial institutions emphasized – Court rejected arguments for leniency, highlighting the need for higher standards of integrity in banking [Paras 18-36].

Legal Precedents – Reference to various judgments to establish the standards of judicial review and proportionality of punishment – Cited cases including Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Dev Singh v. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. To assert the need for punishment to match the gravity of misconduct [Paras 19-25, 37-40].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – No error in Single Judge’s decision – Appellant’s dismissal upheld due to gravity of financial misconduct and breach of trust – Court emphasized that misappropriation of funds by bank employees undermines public confidence and warrants severe penalties – No grounds for showing leniency in punishment as it would undermine the disciplinary framework of financial institutions [Paras 41-42].
 

Criminal Law – Kidnapping with Intent to Murder – Respondents acquitted by the trial court – Prosecution’s case based on the testimony of PW2-Dharmendra Kumar and other witnesses – Trial court found no evidence of intent to kill or to dispose of the victim in a manner that endangered his life – Acquittal affirmed by High Court due to lack of substantial evidence supporting prosecution’s claims [Paras 1-6].

Appeal against Acquittal – Standard of Review – High Court emphasized the principle that appeals against acquittal require substantial and compelling reasons for interference – Cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ghurey Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reinforcing the presumption of innocence strengthened by acquittal – No perversity or illegality found in the trial court’s judgment [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – High Court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court’s well-reasoned judgment – Emphasized the importance of careful review of evidence in appeals against acquittal to prevent wrongful convictions [Paras 11-12].

Industrial Disputes – Retrenchment and Reinstatement – The court examined the legality of the termination of services of the workmen employed as Chowkidars by the Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited. The court found that the workmen were initially directly employed by the corporation and subsequently their services were unilaterally outsourced to private agencies without proper notice or compliance with statutory requirements under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947​​.

Violation of Statutory Provisions – The court held that the termination of the workmen without following the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G, and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act was illegal. The Labour Court's finding that the workmen were entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages was upheld​​.

Employer-Employee Relationship – The court rejected the petitioners' contention that the workmen were employees of the outsourcing agencies. It was established that the workmen were initially employed directly by the petitioners and that there was no valid contractual basis for transferring their employment to the agencies. The failure to notify the workmen of changes in their employment conditions constituted a violation of their rights​​.

Decision:

The writ petition was dismissed. The court upheld the Labour Court's award, confirming the reinstatement of the workmen with continuity in service and 50% back wages from the date of termination until reinstatement. The court emphasized that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act must be strictly followed to protect the rights of workmen​​.

Criminal Law – Attempt to Rape – Section 376/511 IPC – Conviction Altered to Section 354 IPC – The appellant challenged the conviction under Section 376/511 IPC on the grounds that the evidence did not substantiate the charge of attempted rape. The appellant argued that no offence under Section 376/511 IPC was made out as the act did not proceed beyond preparation. The prosecution's case was based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, a minor, who stated that the appellant undressed her and himself but did not proceed further. The court found that the appellant's acts were indicative of an intention to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix rather than an attempt to rape. Therefore, the conviction was altered to Section 354 IPC. [Paras 1-20]

Sentencing – Period Already Undergone – Young Age of Offender – Considering the appellant's age (below 25 at the time of the offence), the long duration since the incident (33 years), and the period already spent in jail (about 2.5 months), the court decided that further incarceration was unwarranted. The appellant was sentenced to the period already undergone. [Paras 21-24]

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – The court altered the conviction from Section 376/511 IPC to Section 354 IPC and sentenced the appellant to the period already undergone. The order of the Sessions Judge, Tonk, was modified accordingly. [Paras 24-26]
 

Public Service Commission – Recruitment Process – The court examined the issue of whether the State Government could demand additional proof of practice experience from candidates already selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) for the posts of ADAs and DDAs. It was held that the State Government's demand for further evidence of six court appearances each year was an overreach and not supported by the relevant rules​​.

Selection and Appointment – Role of Public Service Commission – The court emphasized that the PPSC, being a constitutional body, has the primary authority to conduct the selection process. Once the Commission had completed its selection and forwarded the list of candidates, the State's role was limited to verifying the suitability of the candidates regarding their antecedents, medical fitness, and potential issues of impersonation or forgery​​.

Practice Experience – Certification and Verification – The court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision that certificates issued by the Bar Association or Bar Council, indicating enrollment and practice at the Bar, were sufficient. The additional requirement of proving six court appearances each year was deemed unreasonable and unnecessary. It was concluded that self-attestation or an affidavit confirming the candidate's engagement in advocacy was adequate unless there was substantial doubt about the candidate's practice status​​.

Decision:

The appeals were dismissed, and the decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld. The letters dated 02.06.2023 and 05.06.2023 demanding additional evidence of court appearances were quashed. The court directed the State to proceed with the appointments based on the existing certificates provided by the candidates and the recommendations of the PPSC​​.

Income Tax – Search and Seizure – The court examined the validity of the search and seizure operations conducted against Misty Meadows Private Limited. It was found that the search and seizure conducted at the premises of M3M India Limited wrongly included the petitioner company without proper authorization. The search was initiated without a specific authorization for the petitioner, thus rendering subsequent proceedings under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act invalid​​.

Procedural Lapses – The court highlighted that the search and seizure were conducted without proper authorization as mandated by the statute. The inclusion of the petitioner's name in the panchnama prepared during the search at M3M India Limited's premises did not constitute valid authorization for a search against the petitioner. This procedural lapse invalidated the entire basis for subsequent actions under Section 153A​​.

Requirement of Section 153C – The court noted that any material found during a search that pertains to a person other than the one being searched should invoke proceedings under Section 153C, not Section 153A. Since no valid search under Section 132 was conducted against the petitioner, invoking Section 153A was inappropriate. The proper course was to follow the procedure under Section 153C if any incriminating material related to the petitioner was found during the search of M3M India Limited​​.

Evidence Admissibility – The court also addressed the issue of evidence collected through cloning of a laptop, emphasizing compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for admissibility. The court found that such evidence without proper certification and adherence to legal procedures was inadmissible​​.

Decision:

The writ petition was allowed. The court quashed the notice dated 05.01.2018, the assessment order, and the demand notice dated 07.02.2024 issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act. The entire proceedings initiated under Section 153A were held to be without jurisdiction and declared non est​​.

Criminal Law - Post Settlement FIR - Mutual Settlement – Quashing of FIR – Abuse of Process Prevented - The matrimonial disputes between petitioner No.1 and Prabhjot Kaur, including spousal support and custody, were resolved in Australia, where both parties are citizens. Respondent No.2’s initiation of criminal proceedings in India was held to be an abuse of process, as mutual settlement released all liabilities in India and Australia – Held: FIR quashed as continuation of proceedings was vexatious and oppressive [Paras 7-10, 13].

Limitation for Cognizance – Section 468 CrPC – Proceedings Time-Barred - Alleged dowry harassment occurred around 2011, while the FIR was registered in 2019. The complaint was filed beyond the three-year limitation period prescribed under Section 468 CrPC for offences punishable with imprisonment up to three years – Held: FIR barred by limitation; quashed [Paras 11-12].

Proxy Litigation in Matrimonial Disputes – Judicial Condemnation of Malicious Prosecution - The Court condemned the practice of initiating proxy litigation in India after settling matrimonial disputes abroad, as a means to harass relatives of the other party. Such actions are a clear abuse of judicial processes and clog an already overburdened justice system – Held: Judicial process cannot be used as an instrument of oppression; FIR quashed [Paras 13-14].

Role of Settlement in Matrimonial Cases – Restraint on Continuing Criminal Proceedings - Relying on precedents, the Court emphasized that once a settlement is reached and matrimonial disputes are resolved, continued prosecution is unwarranted. The principle of estoppel applies to parties who have accepted the terms of a settlement – Held: Criminal complaints post-settlement are unsustainable [Paras 8-9].

Contractual Disputes – Withholding of Payment – Dispute arose over withholding of Rs. 1,40,42,000/- payment due to allegations of data breach by the respondent – Appellant cited contractual provisions permitting withholding payment for default – Held, withholding payment pending investigation justified under terms of agreement [Paras 1-7, 10-11].

Writ Jurisdiction – Exercise in Contractual Matters – High Court emphasized limited scope of writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes – Held, writ jurisdiction not appropriate where arbitration clause exists and parties have alternate remedy – Reference to Apex Court rulings on writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes [Paras 8-9].

Arbitration Clause – Dispute Resolution – Agreement contained arbitration clause for dispute resolution – High Court directed parties to resolve dispute through arbitration, setting aside writ court’s order for immediate payment – Emphasized need for arbitration as per contract terms [Para 11].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Parties directed to resolve dispute through arbitration as per agreement terms – No costs [Para 12].

Review Jurisdiction – Grounds for Review – Petitioner seeks review of dismissal order, arguing substantial questions of law were raised but not considered by the court – Review petition examined under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Review permissible on grounds of discovery of new evidence, error apparent on face of record, or other sufficient reason [Paras 1-22].

Error Apparent on Face of Record – Definition and Scope – Review jurisdiction confined to patent errors not requiring elaborate argument or reappreciation of evidence – Error must be self-evident and not subject to different interpretations or extensive reasoning – Prior case laws including Parsion Devi and Lily Thomas reiterated [Paras 10-17].

Previous Adjudication – No New Grounds – Petitioner’s arguments largely reiterate points already considered and rejected in the initial appeal – No new evidence or error apparent demonstrated – Review petition found to be an attempt to reargue the case on merits [Paras 19-23].

Judicial Precedents – Analysis and Application – Review jurisdiction principles from Apex Court judgments applied – Review not an appeal in disguise, meant to correct manifest errors only – Precedents from Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon, S. Nagaraj, and others discussed to emphasize limited scope of review [Paras 15-21].

Decision:

Review Petition Dismissed – No grounds for review found within the ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Original order dated 10.10.2023 upheld, dismissing the appeal for lack of substantial questions of law – Petitioner's arguments considered repetitive and unconvincing [Paras 23-24].