Service Law – Work-Charged Employees – Time Bound Promotional Scales – Distinction between work-charged and regular service – Under the PSEB Scheme of 23.04.1990, only “regular service” counts for grant of time-bound promotional scales after 9/16 years and promotional increments after 23 years – Work-charged service cannot be equated or clubbed with regular service unless specifically provided – High Court erred in directing benefit to work-charged employees [Paras 7, 10, 13].

Work-Charged Establishment – Nature and Status – Work-charged employees are engaged for specific projects, paid from project funds, and their tenure ends with the project – They form a separate class from regular employees; hence, not entitled to parity in pay, seniority, promotion or other benefits – Applied Jaswant Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 115 and State of Rajasthan v. Kunji Raman, AIR 1997 SC 693 [Paras 7–10].

Service Law – Regularization – Effect – Upon regularization, employee becomes member of regular establishment from date of regularization – Past work-charged service cannot be counted for seniority or promotional benefits unless expressly provided by statute or scheme [Paras 7, 13].

Ad hoc Service – Not Equivalent to Regular Service – Even ad hoc service cannot be counted towards seniority or financial benefits like selection grade or time-bound scale – Applied State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association, AIR 2000 SC 3020; State of Punjab v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal, AIR 2001 SC 2691 [Paras 11–12].

Interpretation – “Regular Service” – Expression in PSEB scheme held to mean service rendered after regular appointment – If the Board intended to include all service irrespective of status, it would not have used the qualifying term “regular” repeatedly – Scheme to be applied as written [Para 13].

Administrative Instructions – Government Circulars – Circular dated 17.07.2002 issued by Haryana Government to implement High Court orders in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana not binding on PSEB – State instructions cannot alter or interpret independent PSEB scheme framed under its own regulations [Para 15].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court orders set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – No costs [Para 16].

Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Industrial Employment – Natural Justice – Interplay between Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Standing Orders Act, 1946 – Civil Court’s Jurisdiction not automatically barred – Conflict between Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant (1995) and Rajasthan SRTC v. Khadarmal (2006) referred for resolution – Held, civil court has plenary jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC to entertain all civil disputes unless expressly or impliedly barred by statute – A suit challenging termination for violation of constitutional or common law rights (e.g., natural justice or Article 14) is maintainable in civil court – However, where relief is based on rights or obligations under the Industrial Disputes Act or Standing Orders, exclusive jurisdiction lies with labour forums [Paras 9–23, 28].

Industrial Law – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(k), 2A, 10, 11A – Enforcement of Rights under Industrial Law – Where dispute involves enforcement of rights under the Industrial Disputes Act or “sister enactments” like the Standing Orders Act, the only remedy is to seek adjudication before Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal – However, where the cause of action stems from violation of statutory regulations framed under another Act (e.g., Road Transport Corporations Act) or constitutional provisions, civil court retains jurisdiction [Paras 15–16, 21–23].

Labour Law – Standing Orders and Regulations – Certified Standing Orders do not oust Civil Court Jurisdiction – Certified Standing Orders, though statutorily binding, do not themselves create a special adjudicatory forum – Hence, unless the claim is exclusively for enforcement of Standing Orders, the civil court’s jurisdiction remains unaffected [Paras 15–17, 23].

Administrative Law – Violation of Natural Justice – Effect on Jurisdiction – Violation of principles of natural justice amounts to violation of Article 14 and renders the impugned order void – Civil court can entertain a suit alleging such violation even where the employer is a State instrumentality under Article 12 [Paras 22–23, 28].

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 14(1)(b) – Enforcement of Contract of Service – Exceptions – Ordinarily, a contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced – Exceptions: (i) statutory employment protected by Article 309/311; (ii) statutory corporations acting in violation of statutory regulations; (iii) employees protected by statute; (iv) rights under Industrial Disputes Act – RSRTC being a statutory corporation must comply with its Regulations and principles of natural justice [Para 23].

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling – Application in Jurisdictional Questions – Doctrine of prospective overruling cannot apply to cases where the court lacked inherent jurisdiction; such orders are void ab initio – Earlier use of prospective overruling in Krishna Kant disapproved [Paras 29–30].

Interpretation – Presumption in favour of Civil Court Jurisdiction – Where doubt exists, presumption lies in favour of civil court jurisdiction – Ouster not to be readily inferred [Paras 10, 24].

Held: Civil Court’s jurisdiction not barred in cases where an employee of a statutory corporation challenges termination on grounds of violation of constitutional rights, statutory regulations or natural justice – Only where rights flow solely from the Industrial Disputes Act or Standing Orders Act is such jurisdiction barred – Reference answered accordingly and cases remitted to Division Bench for decision on facts [Paras 31–32].

Decision: Question of law answered – Civil court jurisdiction upheld in cases based on violation of statutory regulations or constitutional provisions – Matters remitted to Division Bench for disposal in light of legal findings.

Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Mere cruelty or harassment without proof of direct or indirect instigation not sufficient – Letters proved dowry demand and cruelty – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside – Convictions under Section 498A IPC and Section 3 Dowry Prohibition Act upheld – Sentence under DP Act reduced to three years – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 10–15].

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 306, 107, and 109 – Abetment of Suicide – Meaning of “Instigation” – Proof and Mental Element – Abetment involves active mental process of instigating, provoking, or aiding commission of suicide – Mere cruelty or harassment without proof of direct or indirect incitement not sufficient to attract Section 306 IPC – Courts must be cautious in cases of domestic discord; hypersensitivity of victim cannot justify conviction – Held: No material to show any direct instigation or aiding by appellant – Conviction under Section 306 IPC unsustainable [Paras 8–13].

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A – Cruelty – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 3 – Demand for Dowry – Evidence including letters written by accused demanding ₹40,000 for purchase of house established persistent harassment and dowry demand – Such conduct constitutes cruelty within meaning of Section 498A IPC and offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Convictions under these provisions sustained – However, sentence under Section 3 of the Act reduced from five years to three years [Paras 3, 14–15].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 209 – Commitment of Case – Properly invoked where offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act were triable exclusively by Sessions Court – No procedural infirmity in trial process [Para 3].

Judicial Approach – Abetment of Suicide – Evaluation of Evidence – Courts must carefully assess whether cruelty in domestic setting was of such nature as to induce suicide – Mere marital discord or ordinary domestic friction not sufficient – Reference made to State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418; Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., (2007) 10 SCC 797; Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 5097; Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SC 2108 [Paras 10–13].

Decision: Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside – Convictions under Section 498A IPC and Section 3 Dowry Prohibition Act upheld – Sentence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act reduced to three years – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 14–15].

Judicial Service – Departmental Proceedings – Natural Justice – Bias – Appellant, a Judicial Officer, was dismissed from service on recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court of Gujarat based on inquiry findings – Same judge who was a member of that Disciplinary Committee also later sat on the bench hearing the appellant’s writ petition challenging his dismissal – Held: Impermissible – Participation of a judge in adjudication of a matter in which he had earlier acted in an administrative or disciplinary capacity creates a reasonable apprehension of bias – Order of High Court set aside – Matter remitted for fresh consideration by a different bench [Paras 6–10].

Principles of Natural Justice – Nemo judex in causa sua – Person cannot be a judge in his own cause – Test is not actual bias but reasonable likelihood of bias – Justice must not only be done but also appear to be done – Applied from Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417 [Paras 9–10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned order of Gujarat High Court set aside – Case remitted to High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Unexplained and inordinate delay of over 25 years in completing investigation and commencing trial – Held: Such delay violates the fundamental right to speedy investigation and trial guaranteed under Article 21 – Proceedings pending for decades without sanction or progress amount to abuse of process – Continuation of prosecution unsustainable [Paras 12–16].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 CrPC – Power of quashing criminal proceedings – Scope – Held: Powers under Section 482 are wide but to be exercised sparingly – When continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process or violation of constitutional rights, courts must intervene to secure ends of justice [Paras 9–11].

Investigation – Jurisdiction of Officer – Initial investigation conducted by an officer lacking authority – Subsequent reinvestigation ordered by High Court not initiated for 17 years – No explanation from prosecution – Held: Delay not attributable to the accused – State’s inaction fatal to prosecution [Para 16].

Speedy Trial – Scope and Evolution – Right extends to all stages – investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and retrial – Delay attributable to systemic inefficiency cannot prejudice the accused – Article 21 ensures fair, just and reasonable procedure, which includes expeditious investigation and trial [Paras 12–15].

Constitutional Law – Enforcement of Article 21 – Even serious allegations cannot justify violation of constitutional rights – Courts bound to quash proceedings where prolonged delay defeats the ends of justice [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Criminal proceedings in Special Case No. 29 of 1987 pending before the Special Judge, Muzaffarpur, quashed [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Murder – Appreciation of Evidence – Sole Eyewitness – Conviction can rest on testimony of a solitary witness only if his presence is natural, and his version is wholly reliable and free from contradictions – Where witness changes version, gives improbable account and is of doubtful credibility, conviction unsafe [Paras 16–18].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal by Convict – Prohibition on Enhancement of Conviction – High Court erred in converting conviction from Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder without intention) to Section 304 Part I IPC (with intention) in absence of State appeal or notice of enhancement – Held: Improper and contrary to law laid down in Abdul Aziz v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 10 SCC 283 [Paras 14, 20].

Evidence – Contradictory Versions – Where eyewitness gives one version in FIR and investigation, but substantially alters story in court, his testimony loses credibility – Case must rest on reliable, consistent and corroborated evidence – Prosecution version improbable and riddled with contradictions [Paras 17–18, 20].

Witness Credibility – “Chance Witness” – Presence of PW-7, brother of deceased, at night incident found to be unnatural – Evidence that he could see events through van headlights and open windows on a winter night held improbable – PW-7’s conduct in not helping deceased or taking him to hospital also doubtful – Held: Not a natural witness; unsafe to rely solely on such testimony [Paras 16–18].

Evidence – Hostile and Missing Witnesses – Out of three alleged eyewitnesses, one not examined, another hostile, leaving only brother of deceased as supporting witness – Absence of corroboration fatal to prosecution [Para 17].

Result: Prosecution story unreliable – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted giving benefit of doubt – Ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Para 20–21].

Civil Procedure Code – Section 11 – Res Judicata – Finality of Connected Suit – Dispute relating to management and possession of Gurudwara Sant Bela Sahib Patshahi Naumin—Two suits filed, one by Sant Hari Singh claiming Mohtmimship and another by the Managing Committee asserting control—Both suits consolidated and decided together—Trial court decreed Hari Singh’s suit and dismissed that of Managing Committee—First appellate court affirmed findings—Managing Committee failed to file second appeal—Held: Findings in that suit attained finality; appellants being members of the same committee litigating under the same title are bound by that decree—Principle of res judicata rightly applied by High Court [Paras 9–13].

Res Judicata – Scope and Application – Section 11 CPC applies where issues directly and substantially in issue in a former suit are between same parties or those claiming under them—Even if formal array of parties differs, identity of interest and title suffices—Failure to challenge decree in connected proceedings makes findings final and binding—Reliance placed on Premier Tyres Ltd. v. KSRTC, AIR 1993 SC 1202; Badri Narayan Singh v. Kamdeo Prasad Singh, AIR 1962 SC 338; and Union of India v. V. Pundarikakshudu & Sons, AIR 2003 SC 3209 [Paras 14–15].

Connected Appeals – Effect of Non-Filing – When two connected suits involving same parties and issues are decided together, and decree in one is not appealed against, findings therein become conclusive and operate as res judicata in appeal from the other—Finality attaches to unchallenged decree and cannot be reopened indirectly through appeal in connected case [Paras 13–15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court rightly applied res judicata – Findings in earlier connected suit having attained finality bind appellants – No costs [Para 16].

Public Interest Litigation – Appointment and Continuation of Police Officer – Challenge to appointment of Director General of Police, Gujarat, on the ground of alleged misconduct and failure during the 2002 communal riots – Allegation that his continuation would impede justice in riot-related prosecutions – State contended that review of all 2020 riot cases had been completed by Scrutiny Committee as per earlier Supreme Court directions – Only 30 “A” summary cases remained, which were also disposed of – Held: Petition has become redundant since all relevant cases were reviewed and the officer was due to retire shortly – No justification to interfere in service matters within executive prerogative [Paras 4–7].

Judicial Review – Scope – Appointment of Public Servants – Appointment to sensitive post such as Director General of Police lies within domain of the State Government – Courts ordinarily will not interfere unless clear illegality or mala fides shown – Doctrine of judicial restraint reiterated [Para 7].

Apprehension of Bias – Alleged Possibility of Influence over Trial Courts – Mere apprehension of possible pressure on subordinate courts is speculative – Courts in Gujarat presumed independent and not amenable to administrative pressure – No basis for such assumption [Para 6].

Administrative Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Decision to initiate disciplinary or criminal proceedings against a government officer lies within executive authority – Court declined to conduct fact-finding inquiry or issue directions for prosecution [Para 7].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed as infructuous – Continuation of Shri P.C. Pandey as DGP held inconsequential – No order for disciplinary action – No interference warranted [Paras 5–9].

Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Exclusive Forum Clause – Validity – Purchase orders and agreements between the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (appellant) and the respondent contained clauses stipulating that all disputes shall be subject to jurisdiction of courts at Jaipur only – Respondent nevertheless filed petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before Calcutta High Court – Held: Where two or more courts have jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC, parties can by agreement restrict jurisdiction to one such court – Such an ouster clause is valid and not contrary to Section 28 of the Contract Act or public policy – Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction in view of express forum selection clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on courts at Jaipur [Paras 15–22].

Interpretation of Section 31(3) & 31(4), Arbitration Act, 1940 – Scope – Section 31(4) operates only where an application under the Act is made before a competent court having jurisdiction – Competency is determined with reference to Section 20 CPC and the arbitration agreement – Since parties agreed that only Jaipur Court shall have jurisdiction, application under Section 20 made before Calcutta High Court was not maintainable – Non-obstante clause in Section 31(4) does not override a valid ouster clause conferring jurisdiction on one competent court [Paras 23–28].

Contract – Ouster Clause – Construction and Enforceability – Clause 30 of General Conditions of Contract and Clause 7 of bank guarantee clearly provided that the contract shall be subject to jurisdiction of “courts only at Jaipur in Rajasthan” – Such wording is explicit, unambiguous and binding – Expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies – Mention of Jaipur courts excludes all others – Agreements validly restrict jurisdiction to Jaipur [Paras 17–22].

Precedents Followed – A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC 163; Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., (1971) 1 SCC 286; M/s. Angile Insulations v. M/s. Davy Ashmore India Ltd., (1995) 4 SCC 153; Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. v. Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd., (2004) 4 SCC 671 – Principles reiterated that forum selection clause confining jurisdiction to one competent court is valid and binding [Paras 17–20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court set aside – Held that only courts at Jaipur, Rajasthan have jurisdiction to entertain arbitration proceedings between the parties – Calcutta High Court directed to transfer records to District Judge, Jaipur for further proceedings [Paras 29–30].