Service Law – Termination – Misconduct – Embezzlement by Bus Conductor – Enquiry Valid – Respondent conductor was terminated after being found guilty of collecting fare from 22 passengers without issuing tickets – Enquiry conducted and show cause notice issued – Personal hearing afforded – High Court held that mere non-examination of passengers is not fatal to enquiry – Relied on Supreme Court precedent that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to domestic enquiries – Held: Termination order validly passed after full opportunity and adherence to natural justice [Paras 7-12].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Sufficient Compliance – Respondent was issued chargesheet (Ex.D-2), participated in enquiry, cross-examined witnesses, and received personal hearing before final order – Court held that procedural fairness was satisfied – Argument of lack of opportunity rejected [Paras 9-12].

Evidence – Enquiry Report – Reliance on Official Testimony – Statement of inspectors Rohtash and Ramdia accepted as basis of findings – Conductor failed to rebut charges or produce passenger witnesses – Enquiry Officer’s report accepted as well-reasoned and supported by documentary material [Paras 5, 10-11].

Second Appeal – Reversal of Concurrent Findings – Improper Interference – First Appellate Court reversed Trial Court's dismissal solely on the ground that passengers were not examined – Held: Such reasoning contrary to settled law – High Court sets aside judgment of Appellate Court and restores dismissal of suit [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 23.01.2006 passed by Additional District Judge-II, Jind set aside – Termination of respondent upheld – No costs [Paras 14-15].

Arbitration – Challenge to Arbitral Award – Variation in Contract Items – Petitioner sought payment for variation (non-BoQ) items under IPC-5 for road works undertaken under a separate contract – Arbitral Tribunal, by majority, awarded part of the claim (Rs.77.98 lakhs) based on Clause 37.2 rates – Petitioner challenged award under Section 34 alleging rates should have been fixed under Clause 37.1 – Held: Petitioner failed to furnish required supporting documents and rate analysis as mandated under Clause 37.1 – First respondent rightly relied on Clause 37.2 and fixed rates based on Chennai National Highways Circle schedule – Tribunal’s approach found reasonable and plausible – No grounds for interference under Section 34 [Paras 9–17]

Arbitration – Scope of Judicial Review – Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act – High Court held that arbitral award based on a possible interpretation of contract and evidence does not warrant interference – No perversity or patent illegality found – Reiterated that courts are not to sit in appeal over arbitrators’ views unless award shocks conscience or violates public policy [Para 17]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Arbitral award upheld – No costs.

Criminal Law – Sections 279, 338, 304A  IPC - Motor Vehicle Accident – Acquittal – State appealed against the acquittal of respondent who was accused of causing death of two persons and injury to another due to rash and negligent driving – Prosecution alleged that respondent was driving an uninsured motorcycle that first collided with the injured’s motorcycle and then with the victims' – Trial court found no direct evidence proving rashness or negligence – High Court upheld acquittal – Held: PW-1 (injured eyewitness) admitted he fell unconscious after the impact and had no memory of events thereafter – FIR was based on a statement prepared by the IO and not dictated by the injured himself – No independent evidence proving manner of driving – Legal presumption under res ipsa loquitur held inapplicable due to lack of corroborative facts – No error in granting benefit of doubt [Paras 23-36].

Evidence – Credibility of Witness – PW-1 claimed to have seen the accused and described the vehicle as coming at high speed – In cross-examination, admitted unconsciousness and confirmed he had no recollection of how the accident occurred – Also stated that he signed a pre-prepared complaint by IO – MLC stated he remembered nothing – Identity of accused as rider not disputed, but rashness/negligence remained unproven – Site plan failed to clarify collision sequence – Thus, eyewitness testimony held insufficient to establish guilt [Paras 25, 28-30, 33-34].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Legal Threshold – High Court reiterated that in an appeal against acquittal, interference is permissible only when findings are perverse or based on misreading of evidence – Trial Court had rightly assessed lack of credible and consistent testimony – Held: Mere occurrence of accident or tragic outcome cannot substitute for proof of offence – Acquittal justified in absence of cogent evidence [Paras 37-39].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – No interference warranted with trial court’s findings.

Criminal Law - POCSO Act – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Proof of Penetration – Conviction under Section 6 r/w 5(m) – Victim aged eight years alleged penetrative sexual assault – FIR contained allegation of penetration – However, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and medical evidence showed only attempt to rape – Doctors found hymen intact with no injuries – Held: Inconsistent versions and absence of medical corroboration render conviction for penetrative sexual assault unsafe – Conviction under Section 6 r/w 5(m) POCSO set aside [Paras 10–11].

Child Witness – Appreciation of Evidence – Partial Acceptance – Testimony of victim trustworthy to extent of sexual assault and attempt to rape – Evidence of great grandmother (PW2) and sister (PW3) corroborated presence of accused and wrongful confinement – Though penetration not proved beyond reasonable doubt, sexual assault established – Evidence cannot be discarded in entirety [Paras 9, 12].

POCSO Act – Sexual Assault on Child Below 12 Years – Section 9(m) r/w 10 – Victim admittedly below 12 years – Acts proved amount to sexual assault though not penetrative – Conviction altered from Section 6 r/w 5(m) to Section 9(m) r/w 10 POCSO – Sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment with fine imposed [Paras 12–13].

Kidnapping – Section 366 IPC – Sentence – Trial Court imposed seven years imprisonment – Considering nature of proved offence and modified conviction under POCSO – Sentence reduced to five years imprisonment with fine – Held proportionate to facts established [Para 14].

Attempt to Rape – Section 376 r/w 511 IPC – Separate Sentence – Not imposed – Accused already convicted and sentenced under Section 9(m) r/w 10 POCSO for same act – Separate punishment unnecessary [Para 15].

Criminal Appeal – Power of Appellate Court – Modification of Conviction and Sentence – Appellate Court entitled to reappreciate evidence and alter conviction to lesser offence supported by evidence – Benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. granted – Sentences directed to run concurrently [Paras 16(i)–(vi)].

Decision: Criminal Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 6 r/w 5(m) POCSO set aside – Accused convicted under Section 9(m) r/w 10 POCSO and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment with fine – Sentence under Section 366 IPC reduced to five years – No separate sentence for Section 376 IPC – Sentences to run concurrently – Set-off granted.

Criminal Law – Discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Framing of Charges – Petitioner challenged trial court order framing charges under IPC and Arms Act – Claimed alibi of being detained by police on the date of incident – Trial Court held that prima facie case existed based on statements of police witnesses identifying petitioner as part of mob – High Court upheld finding – Held: At charge stage, only prima facie evidence needed – No error in trial court's conclusion [Paras 18–23].

Criminal Law – National Security Act – Petitioner was detained under NSA and released shortly before arrest in present case – Alleged mala fide action by State – High Court held that NSA detention does not negate evidence pointing to petitioner’s involvement in mob violence – Detention history not sufficient to rebut eye-witness identification [Paras 4–6, 12, 20].

Evidentiary Threshold – Prima Facie Standard at Charge Stage – Presence of direct witness statements (under Section 161 Cr.P.C.) sufficient to frame charges – Petitioner’s claims require evaluation at trial, not discharge stage – Cited Soma Chakravarty v. State, (2007) 5 SCC 403 to reaffirm that detailed scrutiny of evidence is inappropriate at this stage [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order framing charges under IPC and Arms Act upheld – No ground made out for interference under revisional jurisdiction [Paras 23–24].

Service Law – Pay Protection – Ex-Servicemen – Discrimination among Constables appointed from same recruitment list – Violation of Article 14 – All respondents were ex-servicemen selected under the same 2018 recruitment list – Due to COVID-19 related constraints, training was conducted in four separate batches and appointments staggered – Only the first batch received pay protection while others were denied – Held: All candidates formed a homogeneous group as per the same advertisement and selection process – No intelligible differentia existed to justify differential treatment – Administrative exigencies like pandemic or infrastructure constraints cannot be grounds for hostile discrimination – Judgment of learned single-judge granting parity upheld [Paras 3, 5, 15-25].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Permissible Classification – Select list cannot be fragmented for pay or service benefits based on training schedule imposed by the State – Training is not part of the selection process but follows appointment under Rule 18 – Discrimination based on batch-wise training lacks rational nexus with the object of selection and violates equality before law [Paras 13, 16-20].

Recruitment – Service Benefits – Uniform Entitlements – No statutory rule authorizes different treatment in pay protection within the same select list – Court reiterates principles from Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Assn. v. State of Maharashtra and State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar – Entire class entitled to uniform benefits including pay protection [Paras 21-24].

Decision: Special Appeals dismissed – Judgment of single-judge affirmed – State directed to grant pay protection and consequential benefits to all affected candidates within twelve weeks [Para 26].

Motor Accident Compensation – Maintainability of Appeal – Modified Award – Tribunal passed modified award deleting recovery rights of insurer against vehicle owner during pendency of appeal – Insurance company participated in modification proceedings and raised no objections – Held: Appeal maintainable – No bar against appeal on ground of subsequent modification – Tribunal rightly considered only recovery issue; no legal infirmity [Paras 5-10].

Motor Accident – Income Assessment – Claimant, a 36-year-old working abroad, failed to prove employment details or income – Tribunal fixed notional income at ₹4,000 – High Court, applying Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram, re-fixed monthly income at ₹5,500 considering accident year (2006) – Enhanced compensation granted accordingly [Paras 11-12].

Compensation – Enhancement – Permanent Disability – Tribunal assessed 16% disability due to lack of whole-body assessment in medical certificate – PW2 (doctor) admitted whole-body disability was not assessed – High Court held tribunal erred in underestimating – Functional disability re-fixed at 25% – Compensation recalculated as ₹2,47,500 – Additional ₹1,32,300 awarded [Paras 12].

· Compensation – Other Heads – Enhanced amounts granted under:

· Loss of Earnings (increased period from 5 to 6 months): Additional ₹13,000

· Bystander Expenses: Additional ₹3,000

· Extra Nourishment: ₹6,000 granted for first time

· Pain and Suffering: Increased from ₹25,000 to ₹35,000 – Additional ₹10,000

· Loss of Amenities: Increased from ₹15,000 to ₹30,000 – Additional ₹15,000

Held: Tribunal failed to grant or undervalued these heads despite clear injuries and treatment – Enhancements justified [Paras 11-13].

Motor Accident Claims – Interest – Appeal delayed by 105 days – High Court held enhanced compensation will not carry interest for delay period – Otherwise, interest @7% p.a. awarded from date of petition till realisation – Directions given for disbursal upon furnishing of claimants' documents [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Compensation enhanced by ₹1,79,300 with interest @7% p.a. (excluding 105 days of delay) – Insurance company directed to deposit amount within two months – Legal heirs entitled to full disbursal in accordance with law.

Constitutional Law – 74th Amendment – Autonomy of Urban Local Bodies – Article 243P to 243ZG, Constitution of India – State Interference – The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, introduced Part IXA to the Constitution, granting constitutional status and autonomy to Municipalities to function as vibrant democratic units of self-government, free from State interference – The Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, was enacted to conform with this mandate, providing for decentralization, autonomy, and accountability of urban self-government – Any direct interference by the State Government in the internal administrative affairs of urban local bodies, such as the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, by deputing ineligible personnel or overriding statutory provisions through executive instructions, constitutes a betrayal of this constitutional mandate and frustrates the very purpose of the 74th Amendment – The Court emphasized that once a statute is enacted and assented to by the Governor, neither the Minister nor the Chief Minister can interfere with its proper execution – The Court found direct interference by the State in the RMC's affairs through the deputation of ineligible engineers as Town Planners and the Principal Secretary's obstruction of the Administrator's undertaking – The Court held that such interference is unconstitutional and detrimental to good governance [Paras 66, 67, 74, 75, 95-100, 104, 108, 109, 119, 121(H), 121(K)].

Service Law – Eligibility Criteria – Deputation – Town Planners – Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 – Nullity of Decisions – The Court held that engineers deputed from other State departments to function as Town Planners in the Ranchi Municipal Corporation cannot discharge such duties if they lack the requisite eligibility criteria and experience as per the statutory recruitment rules for Town Planners – The Court found that the deputed engineers did not possess the mandatory educational qualifications (Master's Degree in Planning with specialization or Associate Membership of Institute of Town Planners) – Allowing such ineligible persons to participate in the map sanctioning process renders their decisions null and void, leading to impropriety and potential miscarriage of justice for the public – The State's justification based on pay scale differences or lack of experience for regularly appointed Assistant Town Planners (ATPs) was rejected, especially when ATPs were performing similar duties in other urban local bodies – The Court directed the restraint of these ineligible deputed Town Planners and the assignment of duties to the regularly appointed ATPs [Paras 33-36, 39, 86, 87, 121(A), 121(C), 121(E), 121(G), 127(I), 127(II)].

Administrative Law – Statutory Powers – Executive Instructions – Sanction of Building Maps – Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, Sections 427, 429 – Executive instructions or flow charts cannot override or supplant statutory provisions – The Court ruled that a flow chart conferring power upon Town Planners to sanction building maps up to two storeys cannot prevail over the express statutory provisions of Sections 427 and 429 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, which vest such power in the Municipal Commissioner or Executive Officer/Authority – Any action taken contrary to the prescribed statutory manner is a nullity in the eye of law – The State failed to demonstrate any statutory provision in the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, empowering Town Planners to sanction maps – The Court emphasized that administrative decisions must adhere strictly to statutory provisions, and any deviation or reliance on irrelevant considerations renders the decision unlawful and subject to judicial review – The Court criticized the sanctioning of building plans by individuals without statutory authority, deeming it a "fraud upon the Statute and the Constitution" [Paras 40-45, 79-85, 89-91, 121(B), 121(I), 124].

Contempt of Court – Undertaking to Court – Non-compliance – Rule 393, High Court of Jharkhand Rules – The Court found prima facie contempt by the Administrator, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, for flouting an undertaking given to the Court to issue orders regarding the utilization of services of Town Planners and In-charge Legal Section within a specified time – The Court also found the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, to be obstructing the implementation of this undertaking – While contempt proceedings were initiated, the Court prioritized exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to prevent ongoing illegality and constitutional crisis over merely punishing individuals [Paras 25, 26, 53-55, 59, 66, 102, 103, 121(J)].

Judicial Review – Article 226, Constitution of India – Public Interest – The High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, has a solemn duty to protect the rights of individuals and act as a defender against illegal intrusion by the State or its functionaries – The Court affirmed that judicial restraint does not amount to judicial abdication, especially when gross illegality or error is committed by the State at the cost of the interest of the people at large – The Court held that it must exercise its extraordinary powers to restrain unconstitutional actions, such as the State's interference in urban local bodies and the sanctioning of maps by ineligible personnel, to prevent the perpetuation of illegality and miscarriage of justice, thereby upholding its constitutional obligation [Paras 93, 94, 100, 120, 123, 125, 126].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Prohibitory order issued – Paras [127].

Criminal Law – Rape/Aggravated Sexual Assault – Section 376 IPC, Section 4/6 POCSO Act – Conviction Sustained in Part – The victim's initial statement (fard beyan) implicated only Bijali Yadav for penetrative sexual assault, while her subsequent Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement implicated all three appellants for gang penetrative sexual assault – The Court found the charge of penetrative sexual assault established beyond doubt against Bijali Yadav based on consistent victim testimony and medical evidence – However, due to discrepancies in the initial statement regarding the involvement of Chhedan Yadav and Rajo Sah in penetrative sexual assault, they were acquitted of charges under Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 376(g) IPC – The principle of "falus in uno, falus in omnibus" is not applicable in criminal cases, requiring the court to sift grain from chaff – Solitary evidence of the prosecutrix, if trustworthy and inspiring confidence, can be sufficient for conviction, especially when corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses – Medical examination confirmed hymen rupture, blood oozing, and injuries consistent with aggravated sexual assault – The victim's identification of the accused, who were residents of the same village, was deemed reliable despite the Investigating Officer not seizing the torchlight used for identification – The prosecution's failure to produce FSL report for seized apparels and mobile phone did not negate the victim's credible testimony – Bijali Yadav convicted under Section 4 POCSO Act [Paras 31, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 54, 67].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Section 307/34 IPC – Conviction Sustained – When the victim disclosed identifying the appellants, they physically assaulted her on her face, chest, and abdomen, twisting her neck, with the intention to kill her to prevent identification – Medical evidence corroborated these injuries, including swelling, hemorrhage, abrasion, and scratch marks on the neck – This established the appellants' common intention to commit murder – All three appellants, Bijali Yadav, Chhedan Yadav, and Rajo Sah, were rightly convicted under Section 307/34 IPC [Paras 61, 62, 67].

Criminal Law – Minor Offences – Section 341 IPC, Section 323 IPC – Acquittal – Given the convictions and sentences under Section 4 POCSO Act and Section 307/34 IPC, the Court declined to pass separate orders of punishment for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC – All accused persons were acquitted of charges under Sections 341 and 323/34 IPC [Paras 65, 67].

Sentence – Section 4 POCSO Act, Section 307/34 IPC – Sentence Modified – The Trial Court's sentence was reversed – Bijali Yadav was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (in default, one year further imprisonment) for the offence under Section 4 POCSO Act – Chhedan Yadav and Rajo Sah, along with Bijali Yadav, were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each (in default, six months further imprisonment) for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC – The Court considered that this was the appellants' first offence and they were young men from a remote village, thus deserving minimum punishment [Paras 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Sentence modified – Chhedan Yadav and Rajo Sah acquitted of charges under Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 376(g) IPC, and Sections 341 and 323/34 IPC – Bijali Yadav convicted under Section 4 POCSO Act – All three appellants convicted under Section 307/34 IPC [Paras 67, 68].