Service Law – Pension – Work Charged Service – Inclusion – Respondent had rendered long service as work charged employee under Government of Punjab before joining Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) – PSEB denied pension on ground that his Board service was under 10 years and prior State service was non-pensionable – Held: Once PSEB adopted State Government’s policy (vide Circular dated 25.11.1985) to count prior temporary State service for pension, such service could not be excluded merely due to its work-charged character – Full Bench in Kesar Chand had already struck down exclusion of work-charged service under Rule 3.17(ii) as violative of Article 14 – Rejection by PSEB was unjustified [Paras 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9].

Administrative Law – Policy Adoption – Legal Effect – PSEB voluntarily adopted Central and Punjab Government pension liability sharing policy (Circulars dated 31.03.1982 and 20.05.1982) – Held: Once adopted, the policy was binding on PSEB – Board employees could claim benefit of counting prior service under Central or State Government for pension purposes – Board's later rescission of policy (in 2004) had no retrospective effect – Respondent’s entitlement unaffected [Paras 4, 6, 9, 10].

Civil Procedure – Additional Evidence in Appellate Stage – Respondent produced new documents at appellate stage before Division Bench – Board objected – Held: Respondent’s applications to place documents on record were allowed unopposed – Board reconsidered claim on that basis – No prejudice caused – Objection not sustainable [Paras 2, 12].

Service Law – Interruption Between Two Employments – Respondent retrenched from State service in 1978, joined PSEB in 1982 – Board argued gap of over 4 years violated Rule 4.23 – Held: Policy adopted by Board (via Circular dated 25.11.1985) permitted interruption between retrenchment and new employment – Respondent entitled to benefit of prior service [Paras 11].

Interpretation of Rules – Rule 3.17(ii) Punjab CSR – Struck down – Work-charged employees, once regularised, entitled to count entire service towards pension – Reference to Board’s internal definition under Regulation 2.58 rejected – Punjab Civil Service Rules held applicable [Paras 5, 6].

Mandamus – Direction to PSEB – High Court rightly issued mandamus directing PSEB to count respondent’s State work-charged service towards pension – No merit in challenge to that direction – Direction upheld [Paras 8, 13, 14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment affirmed – PSEB directed to implement pensionary benefits within 3 months – No order as to costs [Paras 14–15].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 141 – Vicarious liability – Directors and officers of company – Mere designation as Director insufficient to attract criminal liability under Section 141 – Complaint must contain specific averments showing how and in what manner the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of company’s business – Bald, mechanical or omnibus statements do not satisfy statutory requirement – Penal statutes imposing vicarious liability must be strictly construed [Paras 9–15, 25].

Corporate Criminal Liability – Managing Director and Signatory – Presumption of responsibility – Managing Director or Joint Managing Director deemed to be in charge of and responsible for conduct of business by virtue of position – Similarly, signatory of dishonoured cheque is directly liable – No need for specific averment in such cases [Paras 19, 25(v), (vi)].

Director’s Liability – Strict compliance mandatory – No deemed liability – Directors not involved in day-to-day affairs or those who ceased to hold office at the time of offence cannot be prosecuted – Liability arises only if they were in charge of business at time of offence – Resignation or cessation from office prior to issuance of cheque absolves liability [Paras 26–27].

Section 141(2) – Consent, Connivance or Neglect – Separate requirement – For liability under Sub-section (2), complaint must contain averments of specific acts of consent, connivance or neglect leading to offence – Mere reproduction of Section 141(1) language insufficient [Para 24].

Principles summarised – Criminal liability of company officers under Section 141 NI Act –

(i) Complainant must make specific factual averments showing how accused was responsible for conduct of company’s business.

(ii) There is no presumption that every Director knows about the transaction.

(iii) Only those who were in charge at the time of offence are liable.

(iv) Vicarious liability must be pleaded and proved, not inferred.

(v) Managing Director/Joint Managing Director are deemed liable.

(vi) Signatory of cheque liable under Section 141(2).

(vii) Other Directors liable only if complaint contains specific factual role [Para 25].

Decision: High Court rightly quashed summoning orders – Complaints lacked necessary averments showing specific role or responsibility of respondents – Respondents had ceased to be Directors when cheques were issued – No vicarious liability could be fastened – Appeals dismissed [Paras 26–27].

NDPS Act – Search and Seizure – Section 50 – Applicability limited to “personal search” – Search of a bag carried by accused does not attract Section 50 – Expression “search of person” excludes baggage, briefcase, or container – Constitution Bench ruling in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh and subsequent cases (Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh) reaffirmed – Held: Compliance with Section 50 not required where contraband recovered from bag and not person [Paras 13–15].

Evidence – Official Witnesses – Independent corroboration not mandatory – Testimony of police officers trustworthy and consistent – Efforts to include public witnesses proved but none were willing – Absence of independent witness not fatal – Courts must evaluate police evidence cautiously but not reject it mechanically – Conviction can rest on reliable official testimony [Para 16].

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 CrPC – Statement of accused properly recorded – Accused given opportunity to explain incriminating evidence – Plea of false implication rejected – Prosecution proved conscious possession and recovery beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 3–5, 16].

Sentencing – Principle of Parity – Distinction between co-accused tried separately – Benefit of parity not available as co-accused Randhir Singh was tried in separate FIR and proceedings – Principle applies only where co-accused are tried jointly for same offence and circumstances identical – Mere coincidence of being searched on same date before same officer insufficient – No ground for reduction of sentence [Paras 17–23].

Constitution of India – Article 21 – Fair Trial – Compliance with statutory safeguards under Sections 42 and 50 NDPS Act ensures fairness – No violation of Article 21 established [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with ₹1,00,000 fine under Section 20 NDPS Act upheld – No interference warranted [Para 24].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Accused fired two gunshots at complainant over irrigation dispute – Medical and ocular evidence consistent with prosecution version – Defence plea of accidental firing rejected – Held: Prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Knowledge of likelihood of causing death sufficient to attract Section 307 IPC even if injuries not on vital part – Conviction restored [Paras 22–33].

Arms Act – Section 25(1)(a) and Section 27 – Accused used his brother’s licensed double-barrel gun to fire at victim – Conviction under Section 25(1)(a) sustained – Acquittal under Section 27 not interfered with [Paras 2–3, 34].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles Restated – High Court’s power to interfere is as wide as in appeal against conviction but must be exercised with caution – Interference warranted when acquittal based on conjecture, misreading, or perverse appreciation of evidence – Presumption of innocence persists but cannot protect manifestly erroneous acquittals – Reiterated: Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227; Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450 [Paras 10–15].

Evidence – Appreciation of Evidence – Eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical and radiological reports – Minor discrepancies immaterial – Absence of gunpowder residue not fatal when victim wore clothes – Defence version of scuffle and accidental fire unsupported by record – FIR prompt and consistent [Paras 23–28, 31–33].

Appellate Interference – Judgment of acquittal can be reversed if perverse, unreasonable, or based on assumptions rather than evidence – First Appellate Court’s finding of accidental firing held unsustainable – High Court justified in restoring trial court’s conviction [Paras 19–21, 34].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 307 IPC and Section 25(1)(a) Arms Act upheld – Sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and imprisonment till rising of Court under Section 25(1)(a) maintained – No interference warranted.

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Appellant-husband sought divorce alleging desertion and cruelty – Trial Court granted divorce – High Court reversed, holding husband failed to plead or prove specific instances of cruelty or animus deserendi – Held: High Court rightly found no concrete evidence or specific pleadings supporting claims – Evidence of daughter indicating cruelty by husband was vital – No perversity in High Court’s reasoning [Paras 7–12, 17].

Hindu Marriage Act – Section 9 and Condonation – Filing of petition for restitution of conjugal rights treated as condonation of prior acts of cruelty – Held: Filing such petition implies readiness to resume cohabitation and condones earlier conduct – High Court correctly concluded that prior cruelty, if any, stood condoned [Para 7].

Civil Procedure Code – Order 41 Rule 33 – Appellate Court’s Powers – High Court exercising power as First Appellate Court has wide jurisdiction to reappreciate facts and law – Interference with Trial Court’s findings justified where appreciation of evidence is flawed – Evidence of child crucial in establishing justification for wife’s separation [Paras 14–17].

Family Law – Concept of Cruelty – No fixed definition – Cruelty must be assessed contextually in light of parties’ social background, conduct, and relationship – Cruelty can be verbal, emotional, physical or behavioural – Courts should avoid rigid standards and assess circumstances of each case individually [Paras 18–20].

Judicial Approach – Caution against Imposing Judicial Stereotypes – Judges must not impose personal notions of social behaviour or marriage norms – Parties’ unique circumstances must guide assessment – Cultural and generational shifts must be accounted for when judging conduct in matrimonial disputes [Para 20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s reversal of divorce decree upheld – No proof of cruelty or desertion – Wife justified in staying apart due to husband’s conduct – No costs awarded.

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Change of Scheme – Respondent applied for compassionate appointment after death of father employed with SBI – During pendency of application, old scheme was abolished and new ex gratia scheme introduced with retrospective applicability to pending cases – Held: Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a vested right but a concession under administrative scheme – Application pending at time of abolition to be considered under new scheme – High Court erred in applying old scheme retrospectively and directing appointment consideration [Paras 8–13, 16–17, 20].

Administrative Law – Applicability of Policy – Where a new policy or scheme explicitly stipulates that all pending applications are to be considered under it, such provision is binding – Even pending applications do not survive unless saved expressly – Employer entitled to change or withdraw compassionate appointment scheme as per policy and financial considerations [Paras 13, 16].

Precedent – Misinterpretation of Prior Judgment – Reliance on SBI v. Jaspal Kaur misplaced – Said case dealt with widow’s claim for additional benefits under new scheme, not applicability of old compassionate appointment scheme – Observations therein cannot be read as support for retrospective application of repealed scheme [Paras 17–19].

Public Employment – No Vested Right – Appointment in public service must follow constitutional requirement of equality and open opportunity – Compassionate appointments are exceptions, strictly governed by scheme in force – No legal right accrues merely by filing application under repealed scheme [Paras 8–12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Single Judge and Division Bench set aside – Respondent directed to apply under new ex gratia scheme as advised – Bank to process application and disburse amount as per scheme within four months of receipt [Para 21].

Judicial Services – Selection Criteria – Minimum Marks in Viva-Voce – Rule 10, Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 – Advertisement invited applications for 20 vacancies including reserved category posts – Petitioners belonging to Scheduled Caste category failed to secure 45% minimum marks in viva-voce – Contention that fixing minimum marks for interview was impermissible in absence of enabling provision – Held: Rule 10 does not authorize fixation of minimum viva-voce marks – In absence of such prescription, criteria could not be imposed by implication – Reliance placed on *Durgacharan Misra*, *B.S. Yadav*, *P.K. Ramachandra Iyer* and *Umesh Chandra Shukla* – [Paras 8–13].

Service Law – Judicial Recruitment – Change of Selection Criteria – Law settled that selection norms cannot be altered mid-process – Authority competent to prescribe qualifying marks for written and interview stages only before initiation of selection – Subsequent introduction of such requirement impermissible – *K. Manjusree v. State of A.P.* and *Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi* followed – [Paras 12, 16].

Constitutional Law – Article 141 – Binding Nature of Supreme Court Directions – Decisions of the Court have binding effect and constitute law of the land – Directions issued in *All India Judges Association* case regarding non-prescription of interview cut-offs to be implemented unless rules amended – Delhi High Court bound by those directions – [Paras 14–15].

Relief – Appellant Ramesh Kumar having secured 46.25% aggregate marks held entitled to appointment – Writ Petition No. 57 of 2008 allowed – Connected petition (Desh Raj Chalia) dismissed for not meeting aggregate requirement – Respondents directed to offer appointment within two months without retrospective seniority or notional benefits – [Para 18].

Decision: Writ Petition No. 57 of 2008 allowed – Writ Petition No. 66 of 2008 dismissed – Appointment to be offered to Ramesh Kumar within two months – No costs.

Service Law – Departmental Enquiry – Natural Justice – Respondent, an Executive Engineer in PWD, was removed from service based on inquiry reports without being provided copies of documents relied on in the charge sheet – Held: Mandatory requirement under Rule 7(5) of the 1999 Rules to supply relevant documents not complied with – Denial of documents constituted denial of reasonable opportunity to defend – Inquiry proceedings vitiated [Paras 4-14, 22, 24, 31, 34].

Departmental Proceedings – Validity of Ex-Parte Inquiry – Inquiry officer failed to fix date for respondent’s appearance and proceeded ex parte – No oral evidence recorded – Documents not proved – Held: Enquiry officer cannot act as prosecutor and judge – Proceedings conducted in complete breach of fair play and neutrality required in quasi-judicial process – Inquiry stood vitiated [Paras 25-26, 31].

Article 311(2) – Reasonable Opportunity – Respondent denied effective opportunity to defend as he was not furnished relevant materials or allowed to cross-examine witnesses – Inquiry held without following due process – Held: Violation of Article 311(2) and the rule of audi alteram partem [Paras 27-28, 36].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Procedural Fairness – Reliance placed on established precedents including Bhagat Ram and Kashinath Dikshita – Held: Denial of access to relevant evidence fundamentally undermines fairness of inquiry – Mere existence of documents in department is no substitute for supply to delinquent employee – Conduct of inquiry failed to meet minimum standards of fairness [Paras 29-33, 35-36].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Show Cause Notice – Respondent alleged to have not replied to show cause notice – Supreme Court rejected plea as no reply could be expected without supply of material documents – Enquiry report itself illegal – Held: Asking for reply without ensuring compliance with procedural safeguards was unjust [Para 37].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of High Court reinstating respondent with all consequential benefits upheld – Liberty granted to State to initiate fresh inquiry in accordance with law and principles of natural justice [Paras 39-40].

Land Acquisition – Valuation of Land – Belting System – Uniform Rate Justified – Acquisition of 38 bighas of compact land in village Jwalapur, District Haridwar for housing scheme – Collector classified lands into three belts, awarding ₹26.25, ₹17.50, and ₹13.12 per sq.ft. respectively – Reference Court reduced to two belts; High Court discarded belting system and awarded uniform rate of ₹26.25 per sq.ft. – Held: High Court justified in treating the entire compact and contiguous land uniformly – No material showing any part of land was less advantageously situated – Belting method unnecessary for such limited extent [Paras 6–7].

Compensation – Market Value – Deduction for Development and Annual Escalation – Collector adopted sale deed dated 19.12.1990 (₹35 per sq.ft.) and deducted 25% for development to arrive at ₹26.25 per sq.ft. – Notification under Section 4(1) issued on 07.12.1991 – Held: Deduction of 25% proper; however, market value to be enhanced by 12% for one-year escalation – Market value fixed at ₹29.50 per sq.ft. as on date of notification – Claimants entitled to all statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 [Paras 9–11, 14].

Interest – Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act – Distinction and Scope – Interest under Section 34 applies to compensation awarded by the Collector; interest under Section 28 applies to enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference or Appellate Court – Not a duplication – Award of interest under Section 28 on enhanced amount is normal rule – Refusal requires specific reasons – Held: High Court rightly granted interest under Section 28; contention of acquiring authority untenable [Paras 12–13].

Decision: Appeals by Authority dismissed – Appeals by landowners allowed in part – Compensation enhanced from ₹26.25 to ₹29.50 per sq.ft. – Claimants entitled to statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2), and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act – No order as to costs [Para 14].