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]

Motor Vehicles Law – Compensation – Liability of Registered Owner – Held, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 provides that the Tribunal, upon an application filed under Section 166 claiming compensation, may make an award determining the compensation amount, specifying the person(s) to whom it shall be paid, and who (insurer, owner, or driver) shall pay it. In cases where the vehicle is not insured, the owner or driver shall be liable for the awarded amount. The term "owner" as defined in Section 2(30) means the person in whose name the vehicle is registered. Section 50 details the legal requirements for transferring ownership. Thus, the registered owner is liable until the transfer is recorded by the Registering Authority – [Paras 8, 9]​​.

Ownership – Transfer and Registration – Held, ownership transfer is effective only when statutory requirements are fulfilled and the Registering Authority updates the records. On the accident day, the appellant remained the registered owner, making him liable for compensation despite the vehicle's sale – [Para 10]​​.

Liability of Registered Owner – Precedent – The appellant's liability persists as his name remained on the Registering Authority's records. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. and P.P. Mohammed v. K. Rajappan&Ors., affirm that registered owners are liable to third parties even after selling the vehicle until official record changes are made – [Para 10]​​.

Constitutional Law – Writ Petition under Article 226 – Land Acquisition – Authority under Regional Development Plan – Petitioners sought quashing of notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Contention that State Government cannot acquire land falling within Regional Development Plan under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in view of Section 42 of Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (PRTPD Act) – Held, there is nothing in PRTPD Act that denudes power of Central or State Government from acquiring property under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 merely because it falls within area notified under Regional Development Plan – Powers of acquisition under Land Acquisition Act are different and independent from powers of State Government to acquire property at request of authority under PRTPD Act – Acquisition for public purpose, specifically for setting up Information Technology Park, is valid – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-12]

Acquisition Powers – Analysis – Held – Central and State Governments retain authority to acquire land under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 even if land falls within area notified under PRTPD Act – Development on such acquired land to be regulated by PRTPD Act but does not restrict acquisition powers – Acquisition by State Government for public purposes, such as Information Technology Park, justified under Land Acquisition Act – No request required from authority under PRTPD Act for such acquisitions. [Paras 6-7]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Court upholds validity of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Acquisition for public purpose within legal framework – No contradiction between Land Acquisition Act and PRTPD Act regarding acquisition powers – Petition dismissed with no order as to costs. [Para 12]

Service Law – Selection and Appointment – False Certificates – Petitioners challenged the selection of respondents No. 4 to 6 for the post of Family Welfare Extension Educator on grounds of ineligibility due to lack of required experience – Respondents produced fake experience certificates at the time of application – Evidence showed that one respondent claimed to work at two places simultaneously – Held, selection and appointment based on fraudulent documents deprive meritorious candidates – Such appointments are illegal and deserve cancellation – Length of service rendered on the basis of fraudulent appointment is irrelevant – Petition allowed, selection and appointment set aside. [Paras 1-34]

Legal Principles and Equity – Analysis – Held – Fraudulent claims in securing public employment nullify the basis of appointment – Law does not favor protection of employment obtained through deceit – Appointments based on false documents cannot be saved by equitable considerations – Misuse of power and influence to secure jobs condemned – Genuine candidates should be considered for appointment in place of those disqualified. [Paras 30-34]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court sets aside the selection and appointment of respondents No. 4 to 6, who were found ineligible for the post and had secured employment through fraudulent means – Directs that petitioner, being at Sr. No. 2 in the waiting list, be offered appointment from the date respondent No. 4 was offered and joined service, with notional benefits but without monetary benefits for the period he did not work. [Para 34]

Civil Procedure – Execution – Auction Sale – Violation of Rules – Petitioner, auction purchaser, sought confirmation of sale and possession of property – Respondent No. 2, judgment-debtor, filed applications to set aside ex parte order and sale, claiming improper service and stay of dispossession – Executing Court allowed applications, finding auction violated mandatory rules – Held, sale of property held on 09.08.2004, but amount deposited on 25.08.2004, violating 15-day requirement – Judgment-debtor residing abroad not properly served – Auction sale during stay of dispossession invalid – Orders of Executing Court upheld, auction void. [Paras 1-37]

Auction Sale and Service of Process – Analysis – Held – Rules 84 and 85 of Order 21 CPC mandate immediate deposit of 25% auction money and balance within 15 days – Deposit delayed, rendering sale void – Notice to judgment-debtor essential for valid sale – Service by publication improper when judgment-debtor's foreign residence known – Absence of proper service invalidates proceedings. [Paras 22, 28, 31-32]

Stay of Dispossession – Impact on Auction – Analysis – Held – Auction held despite existing stay order on dispossession invalid – Executing Court rightly set aside ex parte order and sale – Judgment-debtor's rights protected by stay order, improperly disregarded in execution process. [Paras 33-35]

Decision – Dismissing Revision Petition – Court finds Executing Court's actions justified – No error or illegality in setting aside auction sale and ex parte order – Auction purchaser to be compensated with interest – Petition dismissed. [Paras 36-38]

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Parties – Pending Litigation – Specific Performance – Defendant No.1 executed an agreement for sale of land – Defendant No.1 died and respondents No.1 to 3 were impleaded as legal representatives – Respondents No.1 to 3 sold entire land to respondents No.16 & 17 via two separate sale deeds – Respondents No.16 & 17 sought impleadment as necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC – Held, impleadment of respondents No.16 & 17 as parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC against settled principles – Assignee of suit property during pending litigation may continue or defend suit under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC – Respondents No.16 & 17 permitted to move application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC – Defense limited to original written statement. [Paras 1-21]

Assignment and Continuation – Analysis – Held – Order 22 Rule 10 CPC deals with situations where a party assigns property or an interest devolves during litigation – Assignee may file application to be substituted and continue litigation – Impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC allows full participation as original defendant – Limitation of assignees to defenses of original defendants ensures procedural fairness – Respondents No.16 & 17 to apply under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC to step into shoes of original defendants without reopening settled matters. [Paras 11-14]

Decision – Allowing Revision Petition – Court sets aside trial court's order allowing impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC – Grants liberty to respondents No.16 & 17 to apply under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC within one month – Trial court to decide application as per law – Impleadment limited to defenses available to original defendants – Previous proceedings unaffected. [Para 21]