Service Law - Deputation - Requirement of Consent - Tripartite Agreement - Petition challenging deputation order directing petitioner to join as Private Secretary in the office of Lokayukta, Haryana—Deputation requires a tripartite agreement involving the parent department, borrowing authority, and the deputationist—Petitioner did not express willingness to proceed on deputation—Rules do not provide for posting by transfer—Practice of posting by transfer since inception does not remedy the lack of consent—Held, impugned orders set aside—Writ petition allowed​​.

Deputation - Legal Framework and Consent - Held, Rule 11 of Haryana Lokayukta (Functions, Powers, Inquiry and Investigation) Rules, 2008 provides for recruitment of Private Secretary by deputation from Haryana Secretariat Service-II Cadre—Supreme Court in Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar emphasized the consensual nature of deputation requiring consent of all parties involved—Absence of petitioner's consent invalidates deputation order​​.

Decision - Impugned office orders dated 27.12.2022 and 24.01.2023 quashed—Petitioner not bound to join deputation in absence of consent—Writ petition allowed​​.

Service Law – Deputation – Requirement of Consent – Article 226 – Rule 11 of Haryana Lokayukta (Functions, Powers, Inquiry and Investigation) Rules, 2008 – Petitioner directed to join as Private Secretary on deputation basis – Deputation requires tripartite consent involving parent department, borrowing authority, and deputationist – Petitioner did not express willingness for deputation – Impugned orders set aside – Petition allowed. [Para 4, 6-7]

Concept of Deputation – Analysis – Deputation involves a tripartite agreement and consent from the employee – Consent of the petitioner was lacking – Previous postings by transfer do not remedy the requirement of consent – Orders for deputation without petitioner’s consent deemed unsustainable – Supreme Court precedent supports requirement of consent for deputation. [Para 5-6]

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned orders directing deputation quashed – Consent necessary for deputation not present – Petitioner not obligated to join deputation without consent – Petition allowed. [Para 7-8]

Land Law – Appointment of Lambardar – Procedural Defects in Proclamation – Articles 226 and 227 – Petitioner appointed as Lambardar without proper proclamation – Only three days allowed for filing applications – Procedural defect identified by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner – Directions for fresh proclamation with at least 15 days for submission of applications – Orders upheld – Petition dismissed. [Para 6, 10-12]

Requirement for Proper Proclamation – Analysis – Proclamation conducted on 04.06.2014 with applications invited until 07.06.2014 – Settled law requires at least 15 days from date of proclamation for prospective applicants to apply – Procedural lapses prevented others, including respondent No.4, from applying – Findings of procedural defects by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner justified. [Para 6]

Decision – Orders of Commissioner and Financial Commissioner Upheld – Directions for fresh proclamation and submission of applications within 15 days – Petitioner can reapply after fresh proclamation – No prejudice caused – Petition dismissed. [Para 11-12]

Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet - Essential Commodities Act - Fertilizer Control Order - Petition to quash FIR and charges for non-standard DAP fertilizer sample—Petitioner appointed as responsible person after sample drawing—Company not made an accused—No specific allegations in FIR/charge sheet indicating petitioner’s vicarious liability—Court emphasizes strict construction of penal provisions and necessity of specific allegations to continue criminal proceedings—Held, continuation would cause undue harassment and be an abuse of process of law—Petition allowed, FIR and consequent proceedings quashed​​.

Vicarious Liability - Essential Commodities Act - Allegations Required - Held, vicarious liability under Essential Commodities Act requires specific allegations in FIR/charge sheet—Company must be arraigned as an accused for officials to be held liable—Absence of such allegations and company as an accused invalidates proceedings against petitioner—Strict construction of penal statutes mandated​​.

Decision - FIR No. 81 dated 15.04.2005 and subsequent proceedings quashed as against petitioner—No specific allegations or evidence against petitioner for conduct of business—Company not arraigned as accused—Continuing proceedings deemed undue harassment and abuse of process​​.

Departmental Proceedings - Acquittal in Criminal Trial - Reinstatement of Employees - Constitutional Petition and Letters Patent Appeals - Appeals by State challenging reinstatement of police personnel after acquittal in criminal trial—Writ petition by left out employees challenging departmental inquiry and dismissal—Held, once there is acquittal on merits after detailed discussion, reinstatement is justified—State cannot take different stands for similarly situated individuals—Employees had no concern with the incident and were not present—Delay in lodging FIR and complainants not supporting the case in either proceedings highlighted—Reinstatement with all consequential benefits directed—Appeals dismissed, writ petition allowed​​.

Criminal Law - Acquittal and Departmental Inquiry - Evidence - Role of Standard of Proof - Held, criminal trial acquitted accused based on the same evidence produced before the Inquiry Officer—Primacy given to criminal court judgment—Standard of proof in departmental proceedings differs but should not contradict judicial findings—Departmental findings deemed unjust, unfair, and oppressive when contrary to criminal court acquittal​​.

Decision - Appeals against reinstatement dismissed—Writ petition allowed—Directed reinstatement of employees with all consequential benefits of seniority and pay fixation—Departmental inquiry findings overturned due to lack of independent evidence supporting the misconduct allegations upheld by criminal trial acquittal​​.

Custodial death – Allegation of police brutality – Petition filed seeking CBI investigation and compensation for custodial death of deceased – Deceased taken into custody by police and later found dead with multiple injuries – Inquiry report by CJM confirmed custodial death – CID exonerated accused police officials – Violation of fundamental rights and liberty of deceased established – Court’s duty to intervene in cases of human rights violation – Compensation awarded as mandatory remedy for custodial death – Departmental proceedings ordered against erring police officials – State directed to pay compensation to petitioners and recover from guilty officials, if found – Petition allowed. (Para No.2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22.)

Service Law - Validation of Degrees - Distance Education - Special Examination- AICTE Special Examination – Petition under Article 309 challenging the denial of benefits based on an engineering degree obtained through distance education – Held: The Supreme Court ordered the suspension of engineering degrees for students enrolled during 2001-2005 but did not declare these degrees illegal per se. If candidates pass the AICTE test in the first attempt, they retain all the benefits of their degrees from the original date of obtaining the degree. [Paras 1, 11]

Determination of Seniority - Direct Recruits vs. Promotes – Analysis – Held: The petitioner, having passed the AICTE special examination in the first attempt, is entitled to seniority based on the length of continuous service in the post. Instructions issued in 1962 are not applicable when specific service rules under Article 309 govern seniority determination. [Paras 12, 15]

Equivalence of Distance Education Degrees – Consideration – Held: The petitioner's engineering degree, which was eclipsed by the judgment, regained validity from the original date once the special examination was passed. The judgment in Ashok Kumar’s case does not impact this decision, as it merely restored the status quo ante. [Paras 13, 15]

Decision: The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 06.10.2022 is set aside, and the petitioner's engineering degree stands validated from the original date of obtaining the degree. The competent authority is at liberty to decide seniority afresh, but the petitioner is entitled to seniority based on continuous service length. [Paras 16, 17]

Arbitration - Objections to Award - Limitation Period - Section 34(3) - No Condonation Beyond Specified Period– Appeal against dismissal of objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as time-barred – Held: Section 34(3) prescribes a limitation period of three months from the receipt of the arbitral award, extendable by a further 30 days if sufficient cause is shown. There is no provision for condoning delays beyond this period. [Paras 2, 5, 6]

Awareness of Arbitral Award - Presence of Counsel – Analysis – Held: The appellants' claim of unawareness of the award was refuted by the Additional District Judge, noting the award was announced in the presence of the appellants' counsel and a certified copy was provided on 24.09.2015. The objections filed on 04.04.2016 exceeded the permissible period. [Para 4]

Condonation of Delay - Legal Precedents – Consideration – Held: The settled legal position, as reinforced by the Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. and Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, is that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to condone delays under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. [Para 5]

Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The objections to the arbitral award were filed beyond the permissible period and cannot be entertained. The impugned order stands upheld. [Paras 7, 8]

Administrative Law - Arms Licence Cancellation - Writ Petition Seeking Certiorari - Petition challenging orders cancelling arms licence retrospectively and dismissing appeal - Petitioner held arms licence since 2001 and was later convicted and released on probation - Licence cancelled due to conviction - Held, Licensing Authority must provide written reasons for suspension or revocation of licence and furnish them to the licence holder unless public interest dictates otherwise - No valid reasons provided in this case - Impugned orders set aside - Matter remanded for fresh decision with an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard - Writ Petition Allowed [Paras 3, 5, 8].

Licensing Authority's Obligation - Analysis - Held, No specific findings recorded to indicate which clause of Section 17(3) was applicable - Authority failed to justify cancellation under Section 17(5) - Orders were non-speaking and did not comply with statutory requirements [Para 6].

Decision - Remand for Fresh Consideration - Court quashes the cancellation and appeal dismissal orders, directing the Licensing Authority to reconsider the matter in accordance with the law, ensuring the petitioner is heard [Para 8].