Land Revenue – Appointment of Lambardar – Judicial Review – Appointment of Lambardar of village Pehladgarh – Collector selected Respondent No. 1, Satbir Singh, citing better age, health and social contribution – Commissioner reversed, holding Appellant Ishwar Singh more qualified, educated and experienced – Financial Commissioner upheld Commissioner’s decision, finding Collector’s order perverse – High Court restored Collector’s order stating Collector’s choice should not be interfered with unless perverse – Held: High Court erred in overlooking categorical finding of perversity recorded by Financial Commissioner – Order of High Court set aside and matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 5, 8–9].

Administrative Law – Discretion of Collector – Interference by Appellate Authorities – Though Collector’s choice in Lambardari matters ordinarily not to be interfered with, interference justified where order suffers from misrepresentation, perversity, or non-application of mind – Principles reiterated from Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram and earlier Lahore precedents – Appellate and revisional authorities entitled to examine correctness of Collector’s reasoning [Paras 7–8].

Judicial Review – Requirement of Reasoned Order – High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, must record cogent and convincing reasons when differing from concurrent findings of subordinate authorities – Failure to address specific findings of perversity renders judgment unsustainable [Para 8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 11 April 2008 set aside – Writ petition restored to High Court for fresh decision on merits – High Court requested to dispose of matter expeditiously – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 9].

Civil Procedure – Summary Dismissal – Requirement of Reasoned Order – High Court dismissed first appeal summarily without addressing core issues including jurisdiction of the civil court – Supreme Court held such dismissal without application of mind or reasons violates principles of justice – Order set aside and matter remitted for fresh adjudication on merits [Paras 3-4]

Jurisdiction – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Question whether civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit was raised but not examined by High Court – Supreme Court held that such a fundamental issue warranted judicial consideration – Remanded for proper decision on jurisdiction and merits [Para 3]

Appellate Practice – Duty to Record Reasons – High Court failed to provide reasons for its decision in dismissing appeal – Held: Even in summary dismissal, brief reasons must be assigned to demonstrate judicial application of mind – Non-speaking orders liable to be set aside [Para 3]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order of summary dismissal set aside – Matter remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law – High Court directed to dispose of the appeal within three months from receipt of this order – No order as to costs [Paras 3-4]

Land Acquisition – Market Value – Comparable Sales – Exclusion of DDA Brochure – Inclusion of Contemporaneous Sale Deeds – High Court wrongly relied on DDA brochure rates and excluded registered sale deeds for want of examination of parties – Supreme Court held: Allotment rates of small leasehold developed plots by DDA not reliable for determining market value of large undeveloped freehold land – Sale deeds for land in same village and same year, admissible under Section 51A, must be given due weight – Rejection without valid reasoning improper [Paras 6–11, 22–26].

Stamp Duty – Circle Rates – Evidentiary Value – Circle rates issued by Government of India without statutory backing or expert procedure held not reliable for valuation – Supreme Court followed Jawajee Nagnatham – Circle rates not conclusive and not applicable to rural land at issue [Paras 12–17].

Past Acquisition Award – Escalation Method – Unsuitable – Court rejected attempt to determine 1981 value by compounding 1961 award at 12% p.a. – Held: Escalation over long gaps speculative and untrustworthy – Earlier acquisition not relevant [Paras 18–19].

Evidence – Admissibility under Section 51A LA Act – Certified sale deeds are admissible without examining parties – Courts must apply discretion based on surrounding evidence – Discrepancy in values across deeds must be judicially examined, not automatically rejected – Sale deeds may be excluded only if undervalued, sham, or distress sales [Paras 25–28].

Valuation – Under-Valued Sale Deeds – Court must either accept the sale deed or reject it – Cannot assume undervaluation and apply arbitrary enhancement to presumed real value – Addition to sale price on assumption of suppression of consideration impermissible [Paras 30–31].

Comparable Sales – Proper Approach – Sale deeds relied on by appellants showed higher consistent values (₹35,000–₹68,571 per bigha) – Average ₹50,790 – Held: Appropriate for reliance, after 40% deduction for development – Market value fixed at ₹30,500 per bigha for December 1981 acquisition, and ₹28,000 for earlier 1981 acquisitions [Paras 32–35].

Precedents – Relevance of Awards in Other Villages – Prior decision in Union of India v. Ram Phool (Poothkalan village) not applicable – No evidence that lands in Poothkalan were comparable to Rithala – When evidence from same village is available, it prevails over neighbouring village sales or awards [Para 36].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Market value enhanced to ₹30,500 per bigha (Dec 1981) and ₹28,000 per bigha (Feb–Mar 1981) – Cross-objections by DDA dismissed – Statutory benefits and interest preserved – No order as to costs [Paras 37–38].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Ingredients – Suicide by business associate allegedly due to mental harassment and coercion in connection with profit-sharing – Suicide note blamed appellant and others for pressuring deceased – Trial court framed charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC – Supreme Court held that for abetment under Section 107 IPC, intentional provocation, incitement, or goading must be established – Words or conduct must show intent to drive deceased to commit suicide – Evidence showed threats and sustained pressure, making out prima facie case of “instigation” – Charge under Section 306 IPC justified [Paras 14–17]

Criminal Law – Framing of Charges – Scope of Judicial Review – At the stage of charge, court is not to examine probative value or whether evidence would lead to conviction – Only requirement is whether material, if taken at face value, discloses commission of an offence – Standard is whether court can “presume” commission of the offence – Trial court’s application of mind and reasoning in framing charge found legally sound – High Court rightly declined to interfere in revision – Appeal dismissed [Paras 18–20]

Criminal Procedure – Revision Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – High Court rightly declined to interfere under Section 401 CrPC – Framing of charge involves limited judicial review and cannot be quashed merely because conviction is uncertain – As long as presumption of offence is supported by material, charge can be framed – No error in High Court’s exercise of discretion [Paras 20–21]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Framing of charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC upheld – Trial to proceed – Observations not to affect merits of the case during trial [Paras 20–21]

Section 304A IPC - Medical Negligence – Standard of Care – Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN) – Administration of Steroid Depomedrol – Excessive Dosage and Absence of Supportive Therapy – Held, treatment line adopted by respondents wholly inconsistent with established medical protocol – Depomedrol (long-acting steroid) administered at 80 mg twice daily, exceeding manufacturer’s dosage and intended chronic-use indication – Use of both Depomedrol and Wysolone simultaneously resulted in profound immunosuppression – No monitoring of vital parameters, blood tests, or supportive therapy provided – No IV fluids, electrolyte replacement, or burn unit care administered – Conduct of Dr. Mukherjee, Dr. Halder, and Dr. Abani Roy Chowdhury demonstrated lack of reasonable care and professional prudence – Hospital (AMRI) failed to maintain nursing records or ensure essential ICU supervision – Held: Treatment grossly negligent, amounting to deficiency in service [Paras 83–97, 179–187].

Cleavage of Medical Opinion – Pro-Steroid vs. Anti-Steroid Debate – Whether difference in expert opinion exonerates doctors – Held, mere cleavage of opinion not a shield when treatment does not conform to any accepted line of medical practice – Even ‘pro-steroid’ experts advised use of short-acting corticosteroids (methylprednisolone sodium succinate) in early stage only and in limited doses – None approved administration of long-acting Depomedrol twice daily – Respondents failed to comply even with the standards of the group they purported to follow – Plea of cleavage of opinion rejected – Negligence established [Paras 115–124].

Medical Protocol – Failure to Follow Manufacturer’s Instructions – Held, package insert of Depomedrol expressly contraindicated its use in acute life-threatening conditions – Recommended dosage 40–120 mg intramuscularly at 1–4 week intervals – Respondents administered same drug twice daily – Such deviation from manufacturer’s warning constituted reckless disregard for patient safety – Held: Acts amounted to clear breach of duty and gross professional lapse [Paras 85–88].

Burden of Proof – Civil and Criminal Standards – Once complainant establishes prima facie case of negligence through expert evidence, onus shifts to hospital and treating doctors to show absence of negligence – In civil proceedings, res ipsa loquitur applicable; in criminal prosecution, degree of negligence must be gross or of a very high order to attract Section 304A IPC – In present case, respondents failed to rebut presumption of negligence in civil context, but criminal culpability not established beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 125–132, 198–204].

Contributory Negligence – Alleged Interference by Patient’s Husband – Held, allegation that Dr. Kunal Saha interfered with treatment not supported by hospital records or witness testimony – Nursing Superintendent’s claim unsubstantiated – Even if patient’s relative offers suggestions, professional duty of care cannot be abdicated – Interference not a valid defence to absolve doctors or hospital of liability – At best, relevant only for apportionment of damages [Paras 133–144].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Non-inclusion of Breach Candy Hospital and certain doctors – Held, proceedings not bad for non-joinder under Order I Rules 9 & 10 CPC – Complainant entitled to proceed against persons directly responsible – Absence of other doctors or institutions not fatal to maintainability of complaint – Law as clarified in Savita Garg v. National Heart Institute applied [Paras 145–150].

Hospital Liability – AMRI Hospital – Duty of Care and Deficiency in Service – Absence of basic medical supervision, nursing care, and infection control established – No maintenance of vitals chart, no IV fluids or nasogastric feeding administered despite oral lesions – Patient left unattended to avoid “infection” – No burn unit or equivalent ICU facility provided – Hospital failed in its institutional responsibility to ensure standard care – Held, AMRI liable jointly with treating doctors [Paras 93–97, 187].

Civil Liability – Tort and Consumer Protection Act – Standard of proof in civil negligence lower than in criminal prosecution – Liability arises when doctors fail to exercise ordinary skill expected of a prudent professional – Principle of restitution in integrum applied for assessing compensation – National Commission directed to determine quantum considering loss of consortium, dependency, mental agony, and cost of litigation – Reference made to Lata Wadhwa, R.D. Hattangadi, R.K. Malik, and Oriental Insurance Co. v. Jashuben [Paras 189–197].

Criminal Liability – Section 304A IPC – Distinction between civil and criminal negligence – For conviction, negligence must be “gross” and accompanied by recklessness – Respondents’ conduct negligent but not of such magnitude to attract penal liability – Complexity of disease, multiple medical opinions, and cumulative nature of errors precluded definitive attribution of criminal negligence – Held: Acquittal under Section 304A justified; discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 not exercised [Paras 198–211].

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Held, patient entitled to expect high standard of care when consulting eminent physicians and reputed hospitals – Representation by AMRI and senior specialists raised reasonable expectation of advanced medical treatment – Breach of such expectation amounts to deficiency in service – Doctrine, though derived from administrative law, extended to medical negligence jurisprudence [Paras 171–175].

Informed Consent – Duty to Disclose Risks – Doctors must inform patients about side effects, alternative therapies, and hazards of chosen medication – Respondents failed to warn patient or relatives regarding severe risks of steroid therapy – Held: Breach of patient’s right to be informed; violation of standard of reasonable disclosure consistent with Canterbury v. Spence and Sidaway v. Bethlem Royal Hospital [Paras 163–165].

Transportation of Patient – Risk of Infection During Transfer – Held, transfer of Anuradha from Kolkata to Mumbai medically justified; proper precautions taken by East-West Rescue Air Ambulance – No evidence of deterioration due to transportation – Objection of respondents regarding exposure to infection rejected [Paras 166–170].

Cumulative Negligence – Composite Liability – Each treating doctor and hospital failed in distinct yet interlinked duties – Cumulative effect of negligence led to patient’s death – While criminal culpability could not be apportioned individually, civil deficiency in service stood established collectively [Paras 209–210].

Judicial Review of High Court Observations – Supreme Court deprecated Calcutta High Court’s remarks attributing “over-jealousness” to complainant and speculative comments on foreign citizenship and forged documents – Held, such observations unwarranted, not supported by record – Expunged from record [Paras 212–217].

Decision: Criminal appeals dismissed – Acquittal under Section 304A IPC affirmed – Civil appeal partly allowed – Respondents (Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, Dr. Baidyanath Halder, Dr. Abani Roy Chowdhury, and AMRI Hospital) held negligent and deficient in service – Case remitted to National Commission to determine compensation payable to appellant within six months – Costs of ₹5,00,000 imposed on AMRI Hospital and ₹1,00,000 on Dr. Mukherjee – Directions issued that any foreign expert evidence be recorded via video conferencing at respondents’ cost [Paras 218–220].

Service Law – Dismissal Without Inquiry – Article 311(2) Proviso (b) – Rule 14(ii), Railway Servants (D&A) Rules – Impracticability of Inquiry – Assault on Railway Officer at Station – Delinquent employees accused of conspiring to assault a senior officer (DME) on his retirement day at railway station – Disciplinary authority invoked Rule 14(ii) citing prevailing violence, threats, posters and atmosphere of fear – Held: Satisfaction of impracticability must be based on cogent material – Reasons recorded by disciplinary authority were adequate and not arbitrary – High Court erred in interfering with administrative discretion exercised in exigent circumstances [Paras 21–26, 28–31, 34].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Acquittal in Criminal Trial – Not Conclusive – Employees acquitted by Magistrate on benefit of doubt – Held: Acquittal does not nullify departmental action unless findings in both forums are interdependent – Administrative authorities can independently assess conduct for service purposes – Revisional authority rightly considered acquittal but did not find ground to set aside dismissal [Paras 11, 33].

Natural Justice – Post-decisional Hearing – Appellate and Revisional Review – Appeal and revision filed under Rules 18 and 19 afforded post-decisional hearing – Authorities considered all material including confidential reports and submissions of delinquents – Procedural safeguards satisfied – Rejection of appeals valid [Paras 27–28].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – Article 311(3) – Satisfaction of disciplinary authority not final but subject to judicial review – However, courts cannot substitute their view unless decision is perverse or mala fide – Held: Disciplinary action taken on same day of incident based on contemporaneous facts and first-hand knowledge of authority – Immediate action to maintain discipline justified – No evidence of mala fides or irrelevant considerations [Paras 21–26, 29–30].

Waiver – Appeal Maintainability – Undertaking to Comply with Court Order – Union of India had undertaken before High Court to implement reinstatement order – Held: Such undertaking for stay compliance does not amount to waiver of right to appeal under Article 136 – Appeal maintainable [Paras 36–37].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of High Court and CAT set aside – Dismissals of all employees restored – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal Confirmed – Accused No. 1 alleged to have conspired with co-accused to murder in-laws – Conviction by Trial Court reversed by High Court – Supreme Court held extra-judicial confession made to PW6 (son-in-law of deceased) unreliable, especially when relations were strained and there was no prior communication – Held: Confession to a disinterested or estranged person cannot be relied upon [Paras 9-10, 14-15]

Criminal Procedure – Delay in Recording Statements – PW3 (taxi driver) and PW6 (son-in-law) gave statements under Section 164 CrPC before their statements were recorded under Section 161 CrPC – Delay of nearly two months without explanation – Held: Unexplained delay created doubt over the spontaneity and reliability of their versions [Paras 7-8, 13]

Evidence – Test Identification Parade – PW3 identified Accused Nos. 2 to 4 one month after arrest – Delay in conducting TIP not explained – Investigation failed to corroborate with travel agency owner or booking records – Held: TIP lacked reliability – Identification inadmissible for conviction [Paras 7-8]

Criminal Law – Recovery of Ornaments – Alleged pledge of stolen ornaments by Accused No. 4 to State Bank of Hyderabad found untrustworthy – Signatures mismatched, no linking documents, and accused was already in custody – Held: Recovery evidence not credible or legally admissible [Para 12]

Constitution of India – Article 136 – Scope of Interference – High Court gave a plausible and reasoned judgment of acquittal – Supreme Court reiterated settled principle that where two views are possible, it would not interfere under Article 136 – Held: No interference warranted with well-reasoned acquittal [Paras 15-16]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – Supreme Court declined to interfere under Article 136.

Service Law – Equal Pay for Equal Work – Scope and Limits – Respondents, daily wagers in the Public Health Department, Punjab, granted minimum of pay scale by High Court applying the principle of equal pay for equal work – Held: The doctrine is not an abstract rule and requires proof of complete and wholesale identity in qualifications, method of recruitment, nature, value and responsibility of work – Daily wagers and contractual workers not holding sanctioned posts cannot claim parity with regular employees merely on similarity of duties [Paras 23–27, 42].

Recruitment – Mode and Manner as Basis for Classification – Difference in mode of selection, qualifications, and experience constitutes reasonable classification under Articles 14 and 16 – Employees appointed through due process form a distinct class from daily wagers or ad hoc workers – Equal pay not applicable absent total identity [Paras 11–13, 30–32].

Judicial Precedent – Overruling of Devinder Singh (1998) 9 SCC 595 – Decision in Devinder Singh partly overruled by State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh, (2006) 9 SCC 321 – Full Bench decisions of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ranbir Singh and Vijay Sharma wrongly relied on overruled precedent – High Court erred in mechanically following them [Paras 28–31].

Constitutional Interpretation – Articles 39(d) and 14 – Article 39(d) read with Article 14 embodies equality in pay only among persons similarly situated in all respects – Fixation of pay involves multiple factors including qualifications, recruitment, responsibility, and efficiency – To be determined by expert bodies, not writ courts [Paras 23–26, 33–34].

Application of Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 – Constitution Bench clarified that “equal pay for equal work” differs from claim for regularisation – Courts cannot confer permanency on irregular or ad hoc appointees – However, daily wagers who worked long and continuously may, in equity, be granted minimum wages from date of judgment, not retrospectively [Paras 36–38].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Nature of Larger Benches – Reiterated principle that smaller benches or High Courts cannot disregard binding precedent of larger benches of the Supreme Court – Judicial certainty essential for consistency and rule of law [Para 15].

Relief – Expert Committee Directed – State directed to constitute Expert Committee to determine whether respondents satisfy criteria for invoking Charanjit Singh test – Only employees fulfilling recruitment rules and identical conditions may be granted parity – Equality clause in Article 14 has positive concept; benefit cannot be extended merely because others obtained it illegally [Paras 49–50].

Decision: Civil Appeal No. 7466 of 2003 dismissed with costs; other appeals allowed — No costs.

Service Law – Pension – Counting of Work-Charged Service – Employee initially appointed in work-charge capacity and later regularized—Denied benefit of work-charged period for pensionary computation—Circulars dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 allowed counting of such service subject to option and refund of EPF contribution—Respondent claimed lack of notice and sought to opt belatedly—Held: In absence of proof that circulars were communicated or acknowledged, denial of pensionary benefit arbitrary and unjustified—High Court rightly permitted option and directed grant of benefits [Paras 12–16, 26–28].

Administrative Law – Arbitrariness – Article 14 – Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness—State action denying pension without proof of communication of option circulars violates Article 14—Fairness and reasonableness must pervade executive action [Paras 20–22, 25–26].

Pension – Nature and Right – Pension is neither a bounty nor ex gratia payment but a deferred payment for past services—Social welfare measure to ensure dignity in post-retirement life—Denial without rational basis violates constitutional guarantees [Paras 18, 23].

Precedents – Rule 3.17 Punjab CSR – Full Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab held that once services of work-charged employee are regularised, prior work-charged service counts for pension—Classification excluding such employees arbitrary and violative of Article 14—Principle affirmed by Supreme Court [Paras 15–17].

Equality in Public Employment – Articles 14 & 16 – All similarly situated employees must be treated alike—Arbitrary denial of benefit offends equality clause—Doctrine of reasonableness an integral part of Articles 14 and 16 [Paras 20–25].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld – Respondent entitled to count work-charged service for pensionary benefits upon compliance with circular conditions – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 27–28].