Land Acquisition – Public Purpose – Allegations of Favoritism – Petitioners challenged the acquisition of approximately 2 acres of their land for a road construction project, alleging the acquisition primarily benefited a real estate developer, respondent No. 5 – Held, proposed acquisition was for 386.53 acres and included a significant portion of land from respondent No. 5 as well – No evidence to suggest acquisition was solely to benefit respondent No. 5 – Acquisition aimed at public purpose of constructing a road to decongest traffic, not motivated by favoritism – Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 1-17]

Master Plan and Public Consultation – Analysis – Held – Master Plan prepared and notified with public consultation – No objections raised during the notification period – Master Plan not challenged and thus final – Decision to construct road in line with Master Plan, valid and cannot be contested – Acquisition for legitimate public purpose, compliant with finalized Master Plan. [Paras 16-17]

Inter-State Cooperation and Project Continuation – Analysis – Held – Initial reluctance of Haryana Government to participate in acquisition addressed – Haryana Government confirmed continued participation in the project – Acquisition valid as inter-state project to decongest traffic, benefiting public. [Paras 12]

Decision – Dismissing Writ Petition – Court finds no malafide intent in acquisition proceedings – Acquisition for public purpose and in compliance with statutory provisions – Writ petition dismissed – Interim stay granted up to April 6, 2015. [Para 30]

Family Law – Divorce by Mutual Consent – Lien Over Ancestral Property – Appellant and respondent obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent – Appellant paid maintenance to respondent for herself and their minor daughter – Trial court issued directions that the daughter would retain a lien over ancestral property of the appellant and his father – Held, trial court acted beyond its scope by addressing an issue not raised or consented to by the parties – Directions set aside as they were not part of the mutual consent agreed upon under Section 13-B. [Paras 1-11]

Court's Jurisdiction and Consent Terms – Analysis – Held – Directions regarding lien over property should only be made if the issue was raised and consented to by the parties – Trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions not discussed or agreed upon in the mutual consent petition – Consent terms under Section 13-B should strictly reflect what parties have agreed to. [Paras 6-9]

Decision – Allowing Appeal – Court sets aside the trial court's directions regarding the lien over ancestral property – Emphasizes that decrees under Section 13-B should strictly follow mutual consent terms without extraneous directions. [Paras 8-11]

police inspector, alleged to have disproportionate assets – Inquiry revealed expenditure of ₹16,75,329 against income of ₹4,82,695 – Held, mere acquisition of property not constituting offence, but failure to satisfactorily Prevention of Corruption – Disproportionate Assets – Acquittal – Appellant, aaccount for such possession – Appellant explained sources including salary, rent, lease money, and gifts – Defence more probable than prosecution version – Evidence produced by appellant reliable – Prosecution failed to prove assets disproportionate to known income – Conviction set aside, appellant acquitted. [Paras 1-37]

Evaluation of Evidence – Analysis – Held – Appellant provided credible explanations for assets, including income from ancestral property, rent, and gifts – Prosecution did not consider all sources of income – Appellant’s evidence showed total income exceeding expenditure – Trial court’s finding of disproportionate assets based on incomplete assessment – Appeal allowed. [Paras 22-37]

Decision – Acquittal – Court finds investigation flawed and biased – Defence evidence establishes legitimate sources of income – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Bail bonds discharged. [Para 37]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Vicarious Liability – Quashing of Complaint – Petitioner, a Director of M/s. Santur City (P.) Ltd., signed cheques drawn in the name of the company – Complainant filed a complaint for dishonour of cheques under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioner without impleading the company as a party – Held, cheques issued by the company and signed by the petitioner on its behalf – Company shall be deemed to have committed the offence – Without arraigning the company as a party, the complaint is not maintainable against the director – Section 319 Cr.P.C. not intended to cure such defects in proceedings. [Paras 1-31]

Impleading Company in Criminal Proceedings – Analysis – Held – Company must be arraigned as a primary accused for vicarious liability to attach to its directors – Impleading directors alone without the company renders the complaint defective and unsustainable – Section 319 Cr.P.C. permits adding co-accused identified during trial, but cannot cure initial defects in maintaining proceedings against other accused – Directors’ liability contingent on prosecution of company. [Paras 24-30]

Decision – Quashing Complaint and Summoning Order – Court sets aside the complaint and summoning order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner – Maintains that absence of the company as a party renders proceedings against the director non-maintainable – Petition allowed. [Para 31]

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]