Promotion – Sealed cover procedure – Validity – Whether the action of adopting the sealed cover procedure by the respondents in the case of the petitioner, who was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) but had a pending criminal case, was justified – Held, the sealed cover procedure can only be adopted after issuance of a charge-memo or charge-sheet, not during the preliminary investigation – No charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner – Closure report confirmed his non-involvement – Adoption of the sealed cover procedure was wrongly applied – Petitioner entitled to promotion from the due date if found eligible.

Divorce – Cruelty – Appellant-wife filed an appeal against the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court – Husband alleged that the wife refused to stay with his parents and misbehaved with them – Wife claimed cruelty and dowry demands by the in-laws – High Court set aside the decree of divorce – Court held that the husband failed to prove cruelty adequately and the wife’s refusal to stay under certain conditions did not amount to cruelty – Pending criminal cases based on dowry demands were also considered – Maintenance – Husband ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as monthly maintenance to the wife. (Para 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)

Detention under Foreigners Act - Power to Detain and Confine - Delegation of Authority - G.O.Rt.No.599, dated 02.11.2021 issued by 1st respondent - Legality - Writ Petition challenging the Government Order - Delegation of power under Section 3(2)(g) of the Foreigners Act - Absence of such delegation - Detenu's alleged fraudulent entry into India and possession of forged documents - Grant of bail by lower court with specific conditions - Court's consideration of relevant provisions and precedents - Held that the G.O.Rt.No.599, dated 02.11.2021 is illegal - Order set aside - Immediate release of detenu on bail subject to imposed conditions - Deportation process not precluded - Miscellaneous petitions to stand closed.(Para No. 10, 15, 17 & 18)

Civil Procedure – Ex-Parte Order – Setting aside of – Adequate opportunity to the defendant – Importance of providing a fair opportunity to the litigants – Court should not pass an ex-parte decree without cogent reasons supporting such a decision – Need for proper examination of evidence before passing judgment.

Delay in filing the appeal – Dismissal at threshold – Remarriage of the respondent during the interregnum period – The court may dismiss the appeal if there is an undue delay in filing it after the expiry of the appeal period.

Earlier proceedings on the same controversy – Need for proper examination of material evidence – Every judgment must be supported by adequate reasons – The court should not decide the case solely based on the defendant’s absence – Plaintiff must establish the case independent of the defendant’s actions.

Remanding the matter for fresh consideration – Appellate court’s observations not to be treated as final – Trial court directed to decide the case afresh within a specific time frame. (Para No. 1-28)

Evidence Law - Admissibility of Certified Copies of Public Documents - Certified copy of RoznamchaWaqiati (diary) maintained by the Patwari, in accordance with the Punjab Land Records Manual, is admissible as evidence under Sections 74 and 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The diary, being a public document by virtue of Section 151 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, fulfills the necessary legal requirements. [Para 16]

Property Law - Transfer by Ostensible Owner - For the defendants to be considered bonafide purchasers under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it is necessary that the actual owner has expressly or impliedly admitted the ostensible owner to be the actual owner. In the absence of such admission, the appellants cannot claim the status of bonafide purchasers. [Para 20]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeals - The appeals are dismissed as the court finds no merit in the claims of the appellants regarding the inadmissibility of the certified copy of RoznamchaWaqiati and their status as bonafide purchasers. The plaintiff's ownership of the remaining land, except for the portion sold in court auction, is upheld. [Paras 21-22]

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. – Injuries – Absence of X-ray Film – Medico-Legal Examination – Application for leave to appeal against acquittal – No x-ray film produced nor radiologist examined – Doctor’s opinion based on report without seeing x-ray film – Held, grievous injury not proved – Second injury only complaint of pain – No external injury found – No case for Section 326 IPC – Acquittal upheld – Application dismissed. [Para 15-16]

Evaluation of Medical Evidence – Analysis – Grievous injury claim requires x-ray film and radiologist’s testimony – Medico-legal report insufficient without x-ray proof – Contradictory statements of complainant witnesses – Delay of 9 months in filing complaint without explanation – Acquittal justified. [Para 13, 15-17]

Delay and Contradictions – Consideration – Inordinate delay of 9 months in filing complaint raises suspicion – No prior complaint to police – Contradictory witness statements regarding direction of demolished wall – Complainant failed to substantiate claims – Acquittal upheld. [Para 13, 16-17]

Decision – Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed – No convincing evidence to overturn acquittal – Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal upheld – Application for leave to appeal dismissed. [Para 17-18]

Constitutional Law – Natural Justice – Supply of Enquiry Report – The failure to supply the delinquent employee with the enquiry report before proposing punishment leads to procedural injustice – The supply of the report is not a mere formality but a requirement of natural justice to enable the employee to defend himself effectively – Denial of the report violates Articles 14, 21, and 311(2) of the Constitution. Tribunal rightly corrected the procedural defect by allowing proceedings to continue from the stage of the enquiry report.

Disciplinary Proceedings – CBSE Byelaws – The disciplinary authority failed to furnish the enquiry report before concluding the penalty – The Tribunal's decision to restart proceedings from the correct stage does not cause prejudice to the petitioner – The petitioner’s claim that CBSE Byelaws do not mandate the supply of the enquiry report is rejected as principles of natural justice are inherent and implied, even if the byelaws are silent.

Judicial Review – Certiorari – The court emphasized that procedural safeguards are necessary to ensure fairness in disciplinary actions – The Tribunal's decision to restart proceedings from the stage of supplying the enquiry report was upheld – Petition dismissed.

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed. The Educational Tribunal's order to supply the enquiry report and restart proceedings from that stage is upheld.

Service Law - Delhi Police Constable's dismissal for unauthorized absence - Tribunal dismissing Original Application (OA) for lack of merits - Review application filed - Tribunal recalling previous order and relisting OA for re-hearing - Petitioner challenging findings of Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority (DA), and Appellate Authority (AA) - Charges include transfer, false complaint, failure to report to duty, submission of medical papers, and unauthorized absence - Enquiry Officer's report supporting charges - DA's order of dismissal affirmed by AA - Petitioner's arguments of lack of reasons in inquiry report, prior permission for medical leave, transfer order challenge, and absence charge deemed unconvincing - Reliance on Supreme Court judgments - Absence from duty in disciplined force considered grave misconduct - Habitual unauthorized absence viewed as grave misconduct - Upholding punishment of discharge in absence of proper medical proof - Tribunal's rejection of OA and subsequent orders upheld as justified - Petitioner's arguments dismissed as devoid of merit.(Para No. 41, 42, 43, 46- 61)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of data theft and violation of non-disclosure agreement – Former employees accused of stealing data from the complainant company and working with a rival company – FIR registered under IPC Sections 408, 504, 506 and IT Act Sections 66, 66C – Internal investigation report indicating foul play by the petitioners – Issue of whether the FIR should be quashed.

Held:

The court, after considering the submissions and perusing the material on record, found that there were seriously disputed questions of fact in the case.

The allegations of data theft and violation of the non-disclosure agreement are significant concerns in the digital age, and such cases need to be addressed promptly.

The court held that the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage of the proceedings, considering the ongoing investigation and the grave allegations involved.

The petitioners were reserved the liberty to avail themselves of any available legal remedy at the appropriate time.

(Para 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13)