Departmental Inquiry – Appointment of Inquiry Officer – Retired Public Servant – Inquiry conducted by retired Deputy Secretary appointed as Inquiry Authority – Challenge based on Rule 11(2) of EIA Rules contending that only serving public servant can be appointed – Held: Expression “public servant” in Rule 11(2) includes retired public servant – No express or implied exclusion in Rules – Appointment valid [Paras 33–55].

Service Law – Interpretation of Disciplinary Rules – Doctrine of Exclusion – Exclusion of retired officers must be expressly provided or flow by necessary implication – Rule 11(2) of EIA Rules contains no such exclusion – Applying principles laid down in Union of India v. Alok Kumar – Retired officer remunerated for inquiry falls within ambit of “public servant” under Section 21 IPC [Paras 43–54].

Rule 11(4), EIA Rules – Personal Hearing – Scope and Stage – Requirement to ask delinquent employee whether he desires to be heard in person operates at stage immediately after service of charge-sheet – Personal hearing contemplated during inquiry proceedings, not post submission of inquiry report – No requirement of separate personal hearing by Disciplinary Authority after inquiry report if findings accepted – Learned Single Judge erred in contrary interpretation [Paras 59–73].

Principles of Natural Justice – Compliance – Charged officer participated in inquiry proceedings – Supplied with inquiry report and afforded opportunity to submit representation – Full compliance with procedural safeguards under EIA Rules – No violation of natural justice established [Paras 68–70, 78].

Judicial Review – Disciplinary Proceedings – Limited Scope – Court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with findings of fact unless perverse or based on no evidence – Findings of guilt recorded after consideration of evidence – Not a case of “no evidence” – Reliance on Bhupenderpal Singh Gill held misconceived [Paras 74–77].

Distinguishing Precedents – Kunj Behari Misra and Yoginath D. Bagde – Requirement of opportunity arises only when Disciplinary Authority disagrees with findings of Inquiry Authority – No such disagreement in present case – Said judgments inapplicable [Para 79].

Decision – Letters Patent Appeals – Appeal by employer (LPA 1045/2024) allowed – Appeal by employee (LPA 313/2024) dismissed – Judgment of Single Judge set aside – Punishment order and appellate order restored – No order as to costs [Paras 80–82].

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Bail – Section 43D(5) – Statutory Embargo – Appeal under Section 21(4) NIA Act against rejection of bail – Accused alleged to be member of proscribed terrorist organisation Islamic State – Involvement in radicalisation, conspiracy, reconnaissance, arson and terror funding through cryptocurrency – Held: When Court finds reasonable grounds for believing that accusations are prima facie true, statutory bar under Section 43D(5) squarely applies – Bail cannot be granted [Paras 9–11].

Terrorist Activities – Prima Facie Case – Evidentiary Material at Bail Stage – Material on record including voluntary statement, seizure of mobile phone, digital evidence, FSL report and cryptocurrency transactions considered – Images of sensitive locations, arson-related material and news clippings recovered – Evidence showing receipt and transfer of terror funds through crypto wallets – Held: Cumulative material establishes prima facie involvement in terrorist activities and conspiracy – Trial Court justified in rejecting bail [Paras 3–5, 9–11].

Criminal Conspiracy and Support to Terrorist Organisation – Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 & 40 UAPA – Appellant alleged to have facilitated terror funding, shared crypto wallet details, converted funds into cash and assisted co-accused – Participation in reconnaissance and arson held to be acts furthering objectives of terrorist organisation – Contentions that ingredients of Section 15 UAPA not made out rejected – Prima facie satisfaction sufficient at bail stage [Paras 6, 9–11].

Bail Jurisdiction – Scope of Appellate Interference – Appellate Court to examine whether Trial Court’s view is perverse or ignores material on record – Trial Court discussed evidence in detail and recorded reasons for prima facie satisfaction – No ground made out for interference with bail rejection order [Paras 11–13].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents – Arrest and Procedural Safeguards – Reliance placed on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement – Held: Observations regarding procedural safeguards do not dilute statutory bar under Section 43D(5) UAPA in presence of prima facie material – Bail rightly declined [Para 12].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Order dated 20.05.2025 rejecting bail upheld – Appellant not entitled to enlargement on bail.

Civil Law – Advocate Commissioner’s Report – Evidentiary Value – Application under Section 151 CPC to strike down commissioner’s report – Held: Commissioner’s report is only a piece of evidence and an aid to the Court – It cannot be struck down merely on allegations of collusion or misconduct unless proved by cogent evidence – Objections to report must be examined during trial through evidence and cross-examination [Paras 8, 27–34].

Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC – Scope – Commissioner’s report forms part of record and is non-adjudicatory in nature – Court may accept, reject, vary or order further inquiry – Report does not bind the Court and is subject to scrutiny along with other evidence – Law reiterated [Paras 27–30].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Interference with Interlocutory Orders – High Court will not interfere unless there is patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity – Order refusing to strike down commissioner’s report based on settled principles does not warrant interference [Paras 34–36].

Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Process – Use of AI-Generated Citations – Trial Court relied on non-existent rulings generated by AI tools – Judicial Officer candidly reported bona fide mistake and lack of intent – Held: Mere reference to non-existent citations does not vitiate an order if the correct principles of law are applied and conclusions are otherwise legally sound [Paras 13–15, 25–26, 35–36].

Artificial Intelligence – Cautionary Guidelines – AI may assist in research and organization but lacks judicial reasoning – Courts and advocates must independently verify citations and authorities from authentic sources – Reliance on unverified AI-generated material may undermine integrity of judicial process – Emphasised [Paras 15–24].

Commissioner’s Report – Allegations of Collusion – Burden of Proof – Mere assertions of collusion or deviation from High Court directions insufficient – Such allegations must be established by clear evidence – Appropriate stage for examination is during trial, not at interlocutory stage [Paras 8, 33–34].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 19.08.2025 upheld – No illegality or jurisdictional error found – No order as to costs – Pending interlocutory applications closed [Paras 36–37].

Civil Procedure – Temporary Injunction – Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Scope of Appellate Interference – Appellate court can interfere only when discretion exercised by trial court is arbitrary, capricious, perverse or contrary to settled principles – If the view taken by trial court is a possible view, appellate court cannot substitute its own view [Paras 66–68, 75].

Contract – Memorandum of Understanding for Development of Immovable Property – MOU not signed by all co-owners – No power of attorney in favour of signatory co-owner – Held: MOU not binding or enforceable against non-signatory owners – No prima facie enforceable right created in favour of builder [Paras 16–17, 26–27, 69].

Stamp Act & Registration Act – Unstamped and Unregistered MOU – Clauses creating ownership rights in immovable property – MOU providing for transfer of 42% ownership in land and superstructure – Held: Document compulsorily registrable and chargeable with stamp duty – Unstamped and unregistered MOU inadmissible in evidence and incapable of conferring legal rights unless defect cured [Paras 18–19, 39–46, 70].

Specific Relief – Suit for Permanent Injunction – Absence of Prayer for Specific Performance or Declaration – Plaintiff seeking to restrain true owners from dealing with property – Held: Suit for injunction simpliciter not maintainable when equally efficacious remedy of specific performance available – Bar under Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act attracted [Paras 47–51, 72].

Possession – Builder Claiming Possession under MOU – Clause showing possession as mere licence for construction – No transfer of possession or interest – Held: Builder not in settled or lawful possession – Injunction cannot be granted against true owners [Paras 19, 52–54, 71].

Arbitration Clause – Effect on Civil Court Jurisdiction – Mere existence of arbitration clause does not bar civil suit – No application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed – Parties waived arbitration – Trial court’s finding on lack of jurisdiction held erroneous but not affecting final outcome [Paras 55–61, 74].

Equitable Relief – Injunction – Discretionary Nature – Plaintiff capable of being compensated by damages – MOU containing penal clauses for monetary compensation – Held: No irreparable injury made out – Balance of convenience not in favour of plaintiffs [Paras 64–65, 75].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Order rejecting ad-interim injunction affirmed – Interim status quo order vacated – Trial court directed to decide suit expeditiously – Observations confined to appeal and not to prejudice trial [Paras 76–79].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Interim Compensation – Section 143-A – Trial court directed accused to pay 20% of cheque amount as interim compensation – Accused denied issuance of cheque, denied signature and existence of bank account – Held: Power under Section 143-A is discretionary and can be exercised only upon prima facie satisfaction of ingredients of Section 138 NI Act [Paras 16–18].

Cheque Dishonour – Prima Facie Case – Burden of Proof – Though statutory presumption arises once execution of cheque is admitted – In present case accused specifically denied issuance and signature on cheque – Bank Manager (PW2) testified that cheque account belonged to a third person and not to accused – Defence found prima facie plausible – Interim compensation not warranted at this stage [Paras 22–25].

Evidence – Bank Testimony – Account Not of Accused – PW2, Branch Manager of concerned bank, stated that cheque account was in name of another individual – Supports defence that accused had no account in concerned bank – Serious disputed questions of fact requiring full trial – Grant of interim compensation held imprudent [Paras 23–25].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – While revisional powers are limited – Interference permissible where trial court fails to properly apply statutory parameters under Section 143-A – Impugned order granting interim compensation set aside as not based on correct prima facie evaluation [Paras 20, 25–26].

Criminal Proceedings – Expeditious Trial – Cheque bounce case pending since 2021 – Trial court requested to endeavour to complete trial expeditiously considering pendency and nature of dispute [Para 27].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 26/09/2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari directing payment of interim compensation of 20% of cheque amount quashed and set aside – Trial to proceed on merits expeditiously [Paras 26–28].

Education Law – Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan – Parent Teachers Association – Occupation of School Premises – Plying of Buses – Learned Single Judge permitted Parent Teachers Associations / Parents Welfare Associations to continue occupation of school premises and operate transport facilities – Directions issued without reference to statutory provisions – Appellate Court held that judgment suffered from non-consideration of Article 147 of KVS Education Code governing constitution, powers and functions of PTA – Impugned judgment set aside and matters remanded for fresh consideration [Paras 1, 12–14].

Education Law – Statutory Framework – Article 147 of KVS Education Code – PTA to consist of parents and all teaching staff with Principal as ex officio Chairman – PTA prohibited from collecting or maintaining funds and limited to objectives enumerated in Code – Prima facie finding that petitioner Associations were not constituted in accordance with Article 147 and activities undertaken were beyond statutory scope – However, appellate court refrained from final adjudication on merits [Paras 12–13].

Administrative Law – Exercise of Jurisdiction – Requirement to Consider Statutory Provisions – Single Judge disposed of writ petitions without reference to governing statutory provisions – Held that adjudication ignoring relevant statutory framework is unsustainable – Proper course is remand for reconsideration in accordance with law [Paras 12, 14].

Education – Student Welfare and Transport Facilities – Balancing statutory compliance with student convenience – Court clarified that no opinion expressed on factual or legal contentions – Liberty granted to writ petitioners to seek interim relief before Single Judge – Status quo regarding plying of buses and unboarding of students directed to be maintained for ten days to enable parties to seek appropriate interim orders [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Writ Appeals allowed – Common judgment dated 25.07.2025 set aside – W.P.(C) Nos. 25921 of 2018, 26907 of 2018 and 25995 of 2018 remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration in the light of Article 147 of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Education Code and other relevant statutory provisions – Status quo directed to be maintained for ten days.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 528 BNSS – Scope of Interference at Investigation Stage – Petitioner sought quashing of FIRs registered for offences under Sections 132, 224, 352, 351(3), 353(2) and 56 of BNS arising out of a single incident – FIRs registered within days of incident and investigation yet to commence in earnest – Held: FIR is not an encyclopedia and High Court cannot assess correctness or sustainability of invoked sections at threshold – Investigation must be permitted to proceed [Paras 9, 14–16].

Public Servant – Obstruction and Abuse – Section 132 BNS – Prima Facie Disclosure of Cognizable Offence – Contention that Section 132 BNS not attracted as no criminal force used – Court held that whether correct provision is invoked or alteration is required is a matter for investigation and not for quashing at inception – Police entitled to add or alter offences during investigation with leave of Court [Paras 9, 14].

Offences Against Women – Insult to Modesty – Section 79 BNS (Section 509 IPC) – Telephonic conversation attributed to petitioner contained abusive and offensive language directed at a woman public servant – Prima facie material discloses words and expressions capable of outraging modesty of a woman – Failure of prosecution to invoke Section 79 BNS at initial stage not fatal – Investigation warranted into offence of insulting modesty of woman [Paras 10, 13].

Elected Representative / Public Figure – Standard of Conduct – Petitioner, a former electoral contestant, expected to exercise restraint in speech – Abusive language against a woman public servant performing statutory duty held impermissible and beyond tolerance in civilised society – Such conduct requires investigation in public interest [Paras 10, 12].

Unauthorised Banners and Flexes – Civic Nuisance – Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 – Court took judicial notice of rampant erection of unauthorised banners for film promotion and political publicity – Such acts cause public nuisance and disfigurement of public spaces – State directed in principle to enforce provisions of the Disfigurement Act more stringently [Para 11].

FIR – Not an Encyclopedia – Limits of Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC Jurisdiction – Reiterated that High Court should not conduct a mini-trial or scrutinise evidence at quashing stage – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decisions emphasising restraint and sparing exercise of inherent powers – Criminal proceedings not to be scuttled at nascent stage [Paras 12, 14].

Connected Petitions – Common Incident – Similar Relief – Both FIRs arose out of same transaction with different complainants – For reasons applicable to Crl.P. No.716 of 2026, companion petition also held devoid of merit – Both petitions dismissed [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Criminal Petition Nos. 716 of 2026 and 721 of 2026 dismissed – Investigation permitted to continue – Observations confined only to consideration under Section 528 BNSS and not to influence investigation or trial.

Service Law – Assistant Teacher – Appointment Obtained by Fraud – Cancellation After 15 Years of Service – Petitioner appointed as Assistant Teacher in 2010 and continued in service for nearly 15 years – Appointment cancelled by District Basic Education Officer on verification of records and STF enquiry finding educational and domicile certificates forged and belonging to another person – Held: Length of service does not sanctify an appointment obtained by fraud – Fraud vitiates everything [Paras 2–5].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Fraudulent Appointment – Plea of violation of principles of natural justice rejected – Where appointment is secured on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, no detailed enquiry or opportunity of hearing is required – Beneficiary of fraud cannot invoke protections of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 [Paras 5, 7].

Judicial Review – Alternative Remedy – Writ Maintainability – Though alternative remedy of appeal was available, writ petition not pressed on that ground at final stage – Court held that availability of alternative remedy is not a bar where plea of denial of opportunity of hearing is raised – Nevertheless, on merits, no interference warranted [Paras 6–7].

Precedents – Fraudulent Appointments – Consistent View of High Court – Reliance placed on earlier decisions holding that appointments obtained by fraud are void ab initio and can be cancelled without departmental enquiry – Fraud unravels all acts and confers no enforceable right [Para 5].

Public Employment – Education System – Systemic Fraud – Court expressed serious concern over large-scale appointments of Assistant Teachers on forged certificates with collusion or connivance of officials – Such illegal appointments undermine purity of education system and prejudice students’ interest, which is paramount [Paras 8–9].

Directions – State-wide Scrutiny – Mandamus Issued – Principal Secretary, Basic Education directed to conduct comprehensive and time-bound scrutiny of appointments of Assistant Teachers across the State – Action to include cancellation of fraudulent appointments, recovery of salary wherever permissible, and disciplinary/penal action against erring officials – Exercise to be completed preferably within six months [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Cancellation order upheld – Mandatory directions issued to State authorities for State-wide verification and action against fraudulent appointments – Registrar (Compliance) directed to communicate order for immediate compliance [Paras 7, 10–12].

Specific Performance – Proof of Agreement to Sell – Suspicious Circumstances – Plaintiff relied upon two Agreements to Sell dated 21.11.2005 and 16.12.2005 for same property, same parties, same consideration – No plausible explanation for execution of two agreements – Explanation that first was handwritten and second typed found unconvincing – Held: Multiple unexplained agreements for same transaction cast serious doubt on genuineness of contract [Paras 12].

Agreement on Pre-Signed / Blank Papers – Evidentiary Inference – Typed Agreement dated 16.12.2005 showed abnormal narrow gaps in last lines – Thumb impressions only on last page – Admissions by plaintiff that signatures were obtained at village Nihalpura, Rajasthan and attestation done later at Gurgaon – Stamp papers purchased by plaintiff – Held: Strong inference that thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers and agreement typed subsequently – Agreement surrounded by suspicious circumstances [Paras 13–15].

Admissions in Evidence Contradicting Pleadings – Plaintiff denied in replication that agreement was executed at Nihalpura – In cross-examination admitted execution/signatures obtained at Nihalpura and attestation elsewhere – Held: Plaintiff took false stand in pleadings – Such inconsistencies materially affect credibility and proof of contract [Paras 14, 17].

Sale Consideration – Contradictions between Agreement and Sale Deed – Agreement mentioned total consideration of ₹2,00,000/- – Sale Deed prepared by plaintiff mentioned ₹1,50,000/- as full consideration – No pleading or proof as to payment of balance ₹50,000/- – Stamp papers purchased and Sale Deed prepared prior to target date without explanation – Held: Serious discrepancies go to root of transaction and render agreement unreliable [Paras 15, 18].

Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act – Mere affidavits of attendance before Sub-Registrar insufficient – Plaintiff failed to prove availability of balance consideration – Failed to plead or prove when and how remaining amount was paid – Held: Mandatory requirement of readiness and willingness not satisfied [Para 18].

Burden of Proof – Fraud and Execution – Onus lies first on plaintiff to prove execution of agreement beyond doubt – Only thereafter burden shifts to defendant to prove fraud – Trial Court correctly applied burden of proof – First Appellate Court wrongly shifted burden on defendant merely on admission of thumb impressions [Paras 17, 19].

First Appellate Court – Duty under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Judgment of First Appellate Court reversed detailed trial court findings without framing points for determination or discussing evidence – Cryptic reasoning ignoring material discrepancies and trial court analysis – Held: Judgment suffers from patent illegality and non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC [Paras 19–21].

Specific Performance – Discretionary Relief – Relief cannot be granted on shaky, inconsistent and suspicious evidence – Courts must examine intention of vendor from attendant circumstances – Grant of specific performance by First Appellate Court held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 15, 22–23].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Interference Justified – Though scope is limited, interference warranted where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or ignore mandatory legal requirements – Present case falls within exception – High Court entitled to restore trial court decree [Para 23].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011 of First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 of Trial Court restored – Suit for specific performance dismissed, decree for recovery of ₹50,000/- upheld.