Service Law – Disability During Service – Non-Discrimination – Petitioner's husband, a Library Attendant, suffered an attack and remained in a coma, later granted premature retirement and family pension under Rule 5.11 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules – Petitioner argued services could not be dispensed with under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act – Respondent contended premature retirement and pension were granted on petitioner’s request – Held, disability acquired during service entitles employee to protections under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act – Disability pension and retirement do not negate these rights – No estoppel against statute – Order for granting all benefits under Section 47 of the Act – Arrears to be paid within four months with interest at 9% per annum on default. [Paras 1-27]

Legal Principles and Estoppel – Analysis – Held – The Disabilities Act is a beneficial legislation imposing obligations on the employer and conferring rights on the employee acquiring disability during service – Employer cannot dispense with services or reduce rank without adhering to the Act – Premature retirement under service rules does not override statutory protections under the Disabilities Act – Estoppel cannot negate statutory rights – Comprehensive relief must align with beneficial legislative intent. [Paras 23-25]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court directs the reinstatement of petitioner's husband with all service benefits as per Section 47 of the Disabilities Act – Respondents to pay arrears within four months or incur 9% interest per annum until actual payment – Emphasizes duty of department heads to inform disabled employees of their statutory rights. [Paras 26-28]

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]