Recovery of excess payments made to employees – Whether permissible in law – Guidelines provided by Supreme Court – Court emphasized equitable consideration in cases of recovery, taking into account employee hardship and employer’s right.

Assured Career Progression (ACP) and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) schemes – Intended to provide financial benefits to employees with limited promotional opportunities – Monetary benefits without actual promotion – Objective of relieving frustration on account of stagnation.

Issuance of subsequent notification modifying earlier notifications and directing recovery – Without proper approval and authentication – Held to be without jurisdiction and unwarranted. Benefit granted to employees through the original notification cannot be taken away by executive order after several years of retirement. Court directed respondents to rectify the original notification if necessary, after giving a proper opportunity to individual petitioners. (Para 24, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, 37, 40, 41, 45, 48)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Cruelty – Divorce on grounds of cruelty – Effect of abandoning the previous petition based on cruelty – Principle of issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel – Filing of a new petition on the same grounds. [Para 6-12]

Scope of taking recourse to law by initiating legal action before a court of law – When it amounts to cruelty in a matrimonial relationship – Mere filing of petitions or applications before a court of law by the estranged spouse does not, by itself, constitute an instance of cruelty. [Para 28]

Condonation of acts of cruelty – Whether falling strictly within the framework of Section 23(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Unconditional abandonment of a previous petition based on cruelty leading to legal implication of condonation. [Para 25, 39]

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Discretionary power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution – Distinction between Supreme Court and High Courts – Irretrievable breakdown not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. [Para 41]

Application of Order XXIII Rule 1(4) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) – Bar on the institution of a new petition on the same cause of action – Principles of issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel – No new instances of cruelty cited in the new petition – Appeal allowed, and divorce petition dismissed. [Para 42]

Property Dispute – Will Execution – Challenge to the validity of a Will executed by the deceased Ajmer Singh in favor of the appellant, Pritam Kaur – Trial Court upheld the Will, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision citing suspicious circumstances – High Court scrutinized the evidence and circumstances. [Para 1-8]

Burden of Proof – Propounder of Will – High Court observed that the onus was on the propounder of the Will to remove all reasonable doubts and suspicious circumstances – Court found that the appellant successfully discharged this burden by producing cogent and convincing evidence, including the testimony of an attesting witness. [Para 16-18]

Suspicious Circumstances – High Court identified various factors considered by the First Appellate Court as ‘suspicious,’ such as non-registration of the Will, execution at the parental village of the appellant, and discrepancies in witness statements – Court held that these did not constitute valid grounds for doubting the Will’s authenticity. [Para 19-23]

Legal Heirs – Exclusion from Will – Court noted that the exclusion of natural heirs (respondents-plaintiffs) did not automatically render the Will suspicious – Emphasized that a Will is meant to alter the normal line of succession, and the testator had valid reasons for bequeathing his property to the appellant. [Para 20-21]

DECISION – High Court set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restored the decision of the Trial Court, thereby upholding the validity of the Will in favor of the appellant. [Para 24]

Criminal Appeals – Murder – Acquittal - Conviction under Sections 302/149 of the IPC – Multiple appellants accused of offenses – Issues raised regarding the establishment of the place of occurrence, presence of witnesses, identification of accused, non-examination of Investigating Officer, and delay in lodging FIR – Inconsistencies and contradictions in prosecution witnesses’ testimonies – Lack of proper identification – Absence of Investigating Officer’s testimony – Unreasonable delay in lodging FIR.

Place of Occurrence – Inconsistencies in testimonies of witnesses – Failure of prosecution to establish the place of occurrence beyond all reasonable doubts – Credibility of prosecution’s case questioned.

Presence of Witnesses – Contradictions in testimonies of witnesses – Failure to prove the presence of key witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence during the time of the incident – Doubts raised regarding witnesses’ accounts.

Identification of Accused – Lack of proper identification of accused – Prosecution witnesses not disclosing any source of identification – Inconsistencies in the accounts of witnesses regarding accused’s appearance – Doubts cast on the reliability and accuracy of identifications.

Non-examination of Investigating Officer – Failure to examine Investigating Officer who conducted substantive investigation – Prejudice caused to the accused’s case – Inability to challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses’ statements – Material aspect overlooked in investigation.

Delay in Lodging FIR – Unreasonable delay in lodging FIR – Failure of prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay – Suspicion raised regarding the authenticity of allegations – Possibility of concoction and embellishment of the occurrence.)

Acquittal – Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts – Convictions set aside – Appellants acquitted and ordered to be released from custody.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Matrimonial Case – Expedited Disposal of Proceedings – Right to Speedy Justice – Direction to the Family Court for expeditious trial – Petitioner seeks dissolution/nullity of marriage – Apex Court’s recognition of the right to speedy justice under Article 21 – Notice to Respondent dispensed with – Emphasis on quick resolution of matrimonial cases due to the shortness of human life – Directive for the trial & disposal of the case within three months – All contentions kept open – Judgment to be circulated to concerned parties. (Para 1-3)

Disciplinary Proceedings – Sexual Harassment Allegations – Teacher-Student Relationship – Application of Principles of Natural Justice

The case involved disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant, a teacher, concerning sexual harassment allegations raised by a female student. The Court examined the application of principles of natural justice in conducting the inquiry and emphasized the sacred nature of the teacher-student relationship. [Para 5, 19-21, 29-30, 35-36]

Cited Case Laws – Relevance and Distinguishing Factors

The Court discussed various case laws cited by the appellant’s counsel, including Bidyug Chakraborty (Prof.) v. Delhi University & Ors., Prof. S.P. Narang v. University of Delhi, Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Ors., and Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Coeducation) Higher Secondary School & Ors. The Court analyzed the relevance and distinguishing factors of each case law. [Para 45]

Distinguishing Recent Decision – Aureliano Fernandes – Fast-Paced Inquiry Proceedings – Violation of Natural Justice

The Court distinguished the recent decision of Aureliano Fernandes, which involved fast-paced inquiry proceedings that led to a violation of natural justice. In that case, the appellant was denied adequate time and opportunity for cross-examination, resulting in unfair proceedings. [Para 46]

Teacher-Student Relationship – Sacred Nature – No Legally Permissible Conduct – Consent’s Insignificance

The Court emphasized the sacred nature of the teacher-student relationship and noted that the appellant’s alleged conduct was not legally permissible. The existence or absence of consent on the part of the complainant was considered insignificant, given the moral obligations of a teacher. [Para 47]

Just and Fair Decision by Disciplinary Authority – Compulsory Retirement in the Interest of the Institution – Impugned Decision Not Perverse, Harsh, or Unconscionable

The Court held that the disciplinary authority’s decision to compulsorily retire the appellant from service was just and fair, taken in the interest of the institution. The Court found no perversity, harshness, or unconscionability in the impugned decision of July 1, 2010. [Para 48]

Appeal Dismissed – After considering the entire matter, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Court ordered each party to bear its own costs in the proceedings. [Para 49]

Anticipatory Bail - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 15, 18, 20, 21, and 22 - False FIR - Malicious intent - Lack of supporting evidence - Petitioner's history of fabricated cases - Secret information provided to the police - Petitioner's house found locked, no incriminating substances recovered - Grant of Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C - Petitioner to furnish personal bonds/surety - Cooperation with the investigation required - Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded to petitioner for harassment and expenses caused due to the baseless FIR - Direction to the person responsible for the FIR to pay the compensation within four weeks from the date of the order.

Service Law- Letters Patent Appeal  – Judgment dated 26.07.2023 – Writ petition challenging the disengagement order of Special Police Officer (SPO) – Enquiry conducted under Rule 359 of J&K Police Rules – No enquiry against the petitioner, violation of principles of natural justice – Petitioner engaged as SPO by respondents in 2013 – Disengaged on the ground of alleged links with bovine smugglers – Petitioner filed SWP 2905/2016 challenging disengagement order – Grounds raised included violation of principles of natural justice, arbitrariness, and lack of opportunity to be heard – Respondents contended proper procedure followed – Enquiry report produced in court – Respondents’ reply admitted departmental enquiry conducted – Judgment distinguishes precedent relied upon by respondents – Delay and laches not applicable in certiorari petition – Judgment quashes disengagement order – Petitioner reinstated as SPO with certain conditions – Monetary benefits not granted to petitioner – Delay and laches not applicable – Judgment set aside, disposed of. (Para Number 1-19)

Criminal Revision Application – Challenging the order of Additional District & Sessions Judge (1^st Court) – Prayer for further investigation after the charge sheet was filed – Examination of the scope of power to order further investigation. [Para 1]

Importance of Fair Investigation – Citing the case of Romila Thapar v. Union of India – Emphasizing fair investigation and police’s power to further investigate until trial commences. [Para 9]

Distinction between Inquiry and Trial – Referring to Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. The State of Gujarat – Clarifying that trial commences only after charges are framed, not upon cognizance being taken. [Para 33]

Exclusive Power of Police in Investigation – Citing Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors. – Stating that the power to investigate is exclusively reserved for police officers, and the High Court cannot appoint its own investigating agency unless there is a clear case of abuse of power or non-compliance with legal provisions. [Para 14]

Magistrate’s Supervisory Jurisdiction – Holding that once charges are framed, the Magistrate’s supervisory jurisdiction does not cease, and they can still order further investigation if necessary for the interest of justice. [Para 16]

Dismissal of Second Prayer for Further Investigation – Rejecting the prayer for further investigation for the second time as relevant materials were already on record, and the charge sheet and cognizance were in accordance with the law. [Para 30]

Abuse of Process of Court and Law – Stating that further indulgence would amount to an abuse of the process of court and law and be against the interest of justice. [Para 31]

Disposition of Revision Application – Dismissing the revision application and affirming the order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge (1^st Court) at Serampore – All connected applications also disposed of, and any interim orders vacated. [Para 32-33]