Service Law – Retirement Age – Disabilities – The petitioners, employees of the Punjab Government, sought extension of their service beyond the age of 60 years, citing discrimination against employees with visual and other disabilities. They relied on the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Held, there is no provision in the 2016 Act or the Punjab Civil Services Rules for extending the service of disabled employees beyond 60 years. Discrimination claims cannot perpetuate illegalities; wrongful extensions granted earlier do not set a precedent. Guarantee of equality under Article 14 cannot be enforced negatively. The petitions are dismissed. [Paras 1-15]

Equality Before Law – Enforcement – The principle of equality before law under Article 14 is a positive concept and cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality. Even if some individuals were wrongly given benefits, it cannot be cited as a precedent for others to claim similar benefits. [Paras 14-15]

Decision:

Petitions dismissed. There is no provision for extending the service of disabled employees beyond 60 years, and claims of discrimination do not warrant such an extension. The Court dismissed all the connected writ petitions on this issue. [Paras 15-17]

Bail - Anticipatory Bail - Grant of - Conditions - FIR registered against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC - Petitioner apprehending arrest - Petitioner being a first-time offender with no criminal antecedents - Custodial investigation and pre-trial incarceration causing irreparable injustice – Prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations does not justify custodial or pre-trial incarceration - Court empowered to impose stringent conditions to address concerns of influencing investigation or tampering with evidence - Bail granted to the petitioner - Elaborative and stringent conditions imposed - Petitioner to furnish personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and one surety of Rs. 25,000 - Option to provide fixed deposit or surety bond given to the petitioner - Restrictions and obligations imposed on the petitioner to ensure compliance with bail conditions - Petitioner directed to join the investigation and cooperate - Surrender of weapons and firearms ordered - Non-contact and non-interference directions issued - Bail conditions to be balanced, proportional, and not violating fundamental rights - Petitioner entitled to seek reduction or modification of bond amount or conditions - Bail conditions not limiting investigation - Observations made in the order not expressions of opinion on merits of the case - Petition allowed. [Para 5-24]

Negotiable Instruments Act - Territorial Jurisdiction - Petition under Section 482 CrPC - Complaint under Section 138 NI Act filed at Hisar - Complaint returned due to lack of territorial jurisdiction as per pre-amended Section 142 NI Act - Amendment to Section 142 NI Act effective retrospectively - Complaint required to be restored to Trial Court at Hisar - Petition allowed. [Paras 1-10]

Retrospective Effect of Amendment - Legal Analysis - Section 142(2) NI Act amended to provide territorial jurisdiction where cheque is presented for collection - Amendment effective retrospectively as per Section 142A(1) NI Act - Supreme Court interpretation in Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh affirms retrospective application - Complaint returned due to jurisdictional issues prior to amendment must be restored. [Paras 6-9]

Decision - Setting Aside of Trial Court's Order - High Court sets aside order dated 17.10.2014 - Complaint to be restored to its original number in Trial Court at Hisar - Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously - Petition allowed and pending applications disposed of. [Para 10]

Criminal Law - Forgery and Signature Comparison - Petition under Section 482 CrPC - Allegations of forgery in obtaining an electricity connection - Signatures of respondent already compared by handwriting expert and FSL official - Application to summon additional documents for comparison dismissed by Trial Court - Court slow to base opinion on mere comparison of disputed documents - Petition dismissed to prevent unending trial and abuse of process. [Paras 1-10]

Judicial Discretion - Comparison of Signatures - Legal Principles - Signature comparison must be approached with caution - Court should avoid relying solely on comparison unless necessary - Existing comparisons by experts sufficient - Further comparison not essential for justice - Unnecessary comparisons lead to prolonged trials and potential abuse of process. [Paras 7-9]

Decision - Dismissal of Petition - High Court dismisses the petition seeking further comparison of signatures - Petitioner's numerous opportunities and existing expert comparisons sufficient - Further comparison deemed unnecessary - Petition dismissed and pending applications disposed of. [Paras 10-11]

Criminal Law - Quashing of Summoning Order - Petition under Sections 210 and 482 CrPC - Summoning order found to be flawed - Magistrate failed to apply mind to the facts of the case and the applicable law - Cancellation report not considered - Summoning order must reflect judicial application of mind - Impugned order set aside and case remitted to Magistrate for fresh consideration. [Paras 1-17]

Application of Judicial Mind - Legal Requirement - Analysis - Summoning of an accused in a criminal case requires careful scrutiny of evidence and application of judicial mind - Magistrate must examine allegations, evidence, and cancellation report if submitted - Failure to do so renders the order flawed - Cancellation report is essential under Section 210 CrPC - Summoning order must be reasoned and reflect consideration of all relevant materials. [Paras 6-13]

Decision - Setting Aside of Summoning Order - High Court sets aside the summoning order dated 16.07.2018 - Magistrate failed to consider the cancellation report and applied facts from an unrelated case - Case remitted for fresh consideration by the Magistrate - Petition partly allowed and pending applications disposed of. [Paras 14-17]

Compensation amount - Deduction of medical reimbursement - Entitlement of claimant - Claimant receiving medical reimbursement under a separate Mediclaim policy from another insurance company - Appellant arguing for deduction of reimbursement amount from awarded compensation - Respondent contending that separate contractual liabilities exist - Contractual liability between claimant's father and other insurance company different from liability between driver/owner of offending vehicle and appellant/insurance company - Court holding that separate contractual liabilities cannot be equated - Reimbursement amount cannot be deducted from compensation amount. (Para 8)

Contractual liability - Distinction between separate policies - Claimant's father taking Health Insurance Policy for family - Premium paid for separate policy - Reimbursement received based on that policy - Different from contractual liability between appellant/insurance company and driver/owner of offending vehicle - Court emphasizing distinction between contractual obligations. (Para 8)

Appellant's liability - Indemnification of contractual liability - Appellant liable to indemnify contractual liability between them and owner of offending vehicle - Reimbursement amount received under separate contractual liability cannot be deducted from compensation amount. (Para 8)

Appeal - Dismissal - Claimant entitled to compensation - Appellant's request for deduction of reimbursement amount denied - Compensation awarded by Tribunal to stand. (Para 9)

Constitutional Law - Writ of Certiorari – Writ petition challenging the communication rejecting the petitioner's claim for Mewat Area Allowance – Petitioner's degree delay due to pending litigation – Supreme Court quashes communication, grants allowance – Delay beyond petitioner's control, allowance entitlement upheld. [Paras 1-9]

Employment Law - Entitlement to Allowance – Analysis – Held – Petitioner's post-graduate status before service joining uncontested – Degree delay due to external litigation – Entitlement to Mewat Area Allowance for entire tenure upheld. [Para 7]

Decision – Quashing of Impugned Communication – Court quashes the communication dated 02.11.2016 denying the petitioner the Mewat Area Allowance – Orders the respondents to grant the allowance for the entire tenure period within three months, with interest for delays. [Para 8]

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Petition under Section 438 CrPC - Allegations of cheating and misappropriation of funds - Petitioners accused of inducing the complainant to invest Rs. 65 lakhs in a fraudulent scheme involving the sale of onions - Petitioners submitted fictitious documents during the investigation - Apprehension of influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence - Custodial interrogation deemed necessary - Anticipatory bail denied. [Paras 1-12]

Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Judicial Discretion - Analysis - Judicial discretion to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised judiciously - Nature and gravity of the accusations, possibility of influencing witnesses, and need for custodial interrogation considered - Extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail granted only in exceptional cases - Petitioners' actions and submission of fictitious documents undermined trust in justice delivery system - Anticipatory bail rightly denied to prevent abuse of process. [Paras 7-10]

Decision - Dismissal of Anticipatory Bail Petition - High Court dismisses petition for anticipatory bail - Grave allegations of cheating and submission of fictitious documents - Custodial interrogation required for thorough investigation - Petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail - Petition dismissed and pending applications disposed of. [Paras 11-13]

Arms Act – Renewal and Cancellation of Licence – Quasi-Judicial Decisions – Writ petition challenging the orders canceling the petitioner’s arms licence and dismissing the appeal against the cancellation. The cancellation was based on the petitioner’s involvement in three FIRs, despite acquittal in all cases. Held, the cancellation order and the appellate order were non-speaking and lacked reasons, violating Section 17(5) of the Arms Act. Quasi-judicial authorities must support their conclusions with reasons. The impugned orders are set aside, and the matter is remitted for reconsideration in accordance with law, keeping in view the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Arms Act. [Paras 1-11]

Legal Requirement – Reasoned Orders – Judicial Accountability – The necessity for quasi-judicial authorities to provide reasons for their decisions is emphasized. Held, transparency and reasoned decisions are essential for judicial accountability and to maintain litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. The impugned orders did not record reasons bringing the case within the ambit of Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, rendering them non-speaking and violative of Section 17(5). [Paras 10-11]

Decision:

Impugned orders set aside. The petition is disposed of by remitting the matter to respondent No. 2 to consider it afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Arms Act. The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No. 2 on April 25, 2023, at 11:00 AM. [Paras 11-12]