Military Promotion – Consideration of Service Records for Promotion to Colonel – Issue concerning the consideration of Confidential Reports (CRs) for promotion of women officers in the Indian Army to the rank of Colonel post Permanent Commission (PC) – Grievance regarding non-empanelment for promotion and exclusion of recent CRs addressed. [Para 1-2, 10-12]

Army Policy Framework – Analysis of policy communications relevant to CRs for promotion selection boards – Evolution from 2002 to 2017 highlighting the importance of CRs after nine years’ reckonable service and the establishment of the Quantified System for selection. [Para 3-9]

Judicial Precedent – Reference to the Supreme Court's judgment in Nitisha v. Union of India – Emphasis on considering the entire service record for grant of PC to Women Short Service Commission Officers (WSSCOs) and the implications for current empanelment for Colonel rank. [Para 9]

Discrepancy in Promotion Criteria – Assertion that the approach for empanelment of women officers as Colonels is inconsistent with policy directives and the Supreme Court's judgment in Nitisha – Argument that a significant portion of service CRs was arbitrarily excluded from consideration. [Para 14-18, 20]

Arbitrariness and Constitutional Violation – Determination that the cutoff application for CRs in empanelment as Colonels is arbitrary and violates fairness principles – Directions for a fresh selection board exercise and consideration of all eligible women officers with a common cutoff date. [Para 18-23]

Decision – Direction for reconvening of Special No 3 SB for all women officers previously considered, with a common cutoff for CRs and inclusive of retired officers – Assurance of unaffected seniority for officers already empaneled or promoted. [Para 23-24]

Civil Appeal – Partition Suit – Appellant (defendant no. 2) contesting High Court's judgment granting the plaintiff (respondent no. 1) a share in the disputed properties – Appeal partially allowed, High Court's judgment modified to exclude plaintiff's entitlement to a share of her mother-in-law's property. [Para 14]

Property Inheritance – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Application of Sections 15(1)(a) and 16 – Clarification on property devolution of a female Hindu dying intestate – Plaintiff, as widow of the pre-deceased son, not entitled to the first right or share in mother-in-law's property. [Para 13]

Joint Family Property – High Court's finding of all suit properties being joint family properties upheld – No perversity found in High Court's determination. [Para 10]

Mesne Profits – First Appellate Court grants liberty to plaintiff to seek mesne profits for certain properties through separate proceedings – High Court's judgment does not address this aspect. [Para 4]

Succession and Devolution – High Court's misapplication of succession laws corrected – Plaintiff's share recalculated, excluding the share from her mother-in-law's estate. [Para 10, 14]

Sexual Harassment Allegations - Disciplinary Proceedings - The respondent, an Area Organizer at the Service Selection Board (SSB) Rangia, Assam, faced allegations of sexual harassment from a female colleague. Initial on-spot inquiries and reports by Frontier and Central Complaints Committees failed to fully substantiate these allegations - Central Complaints Committee's subsequent inquiry established the charges, leading to disciplinary action against the respondent. [Para 3-13]

Sexual Harassment Allegations and Inquiry Reports – Analysis of multiple inquiry reports concerning allegations of sexual harassment against Dilip Paul, a government servant - Examination of the procedural aspects of these inquiries, including the role of the Central Complaints Committee and adherence to the Vishaka guidelines. [Paras 3-13, 20-21]

Applicability of the Vishaka Guidelines – Application and interpretation of the Vishaka guidelines in the context of disciplinary proceedings against a government servant accused of sexual harassment - formation of the Complaints Committee, the procedure followed for inquiries, and ensuring a harassment-free workplace. [Paras 34-40]

Disciplinary Proceedings and Sexual Harassment – Application of 1965 CCS Rules and 2006 Standing Order – The Central Complaints Committee (CCC) conducted inquiries under the 1965 CCS Rules and 2006 Standing Order for sexual harassment allegations. The flexibility provided by the term "as far as practicable" in Rule 14(2) of the 1965 CCS Rules was interpreted to strike a balance between sensitivity and fairness. The committee, as the inquiring authority, was tasked with adopting a fair and feasible procedure while adhering to natural justice principles. [Paras 41, 43-44, 70-71, 73]

Judicial Review in Disciplinary Proceedings – The scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to examining the propriety and fairness of the decision-making process and inquiry procedure. Courts should not reappreciate evidence or substitute their findings for those of the disciplinary authority. However, courts may intervene if there's no evidence supporting the authority's findings, or if the decision is unreasonable or perverse. [Paras 42, 82-89, 91-93]

Handling Multiple Complaints and Sequential Inquiries – The validity of conducting multiple inquiries into the same allegations was upheld. The need for a subsequent inquiry by the CCC after an initial on-the-spot/preliminary inquiry was justified, especially when the first committee was improperly constituted or lacked seniority over the respondent. This approach was in line with ensuring a thorough and fair investigation into the allegations. [Paras 98-102]

Application of Test of Prejudice in Procedural Irregularities – The principle of "test of prejudice" is applied in cases of alleged procedural impropriety or violation. It assesses whether such violations resulted in prejudice or loss of fair hearing. This principle is crucial in determining the validity of disciplinary actions and inquiries. [Paras 57, 92]

Standard of Proof and Evidence in Disciplinary Inquiries – The standard of proof in departmental inquiries is based on the preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt - committee’s findings were supported by various witness testimonies, indicating the presence of some evidence against the allegations, thus negating the argument of "no evidence." [Paras 94-97, 102]

Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of the High Court dated 15.05.2019 were set aside. The disciplinary authority's penalty order was restored, with a clarification that no recovery of amounts already paid to the respondent would be made.

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Sections 302 and 498A IPC – The appellant convicted and sentenced by both lower courts for causing the death of his wife by setting her ablaze – Appeal for reconsideration of conviction under Section 302 IPC, proposing a charge under Section 304 Part-II IPC instead. [Para 1-9]

Evidence – Multiple Dying Declarations – Two dying declarations by deceased wife, one before Judicial First Class Magistrate and the other recorded by Head Constable, along with the corroborative testimonies of other witnesses, establish appellant's act of setting his wife ablaze after she poured kerosene on herself amidst a quarrel. [Para 11-16]

Culpable Homicide and Murder – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Appellant’s argument for a charge under Section 304 Part-II IPC based on lack of premeditation and sudden quarrel rejected, as the act of setting ablaze was deliberate with a history of domestic quarrels, thus not falling within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, and hence confirmed as murder under Section 302 IPC. [Para 18-24]

Judgment – Dismissal of Appeal – The appeal lacks merit due to overwhelming evidence proving the appellant's guilt in the intentional act of murder – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment upheld with a note on appellant’s liberty to apply for remission as per state policy. [Para 25-26]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction Challenge – Appeals challenging the common judgment and order dated 14^th March 2018, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, upholding the conviction and sentencing of the appellants for offences under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 326 read with Section 149, Section 324 read with Section 149, Section 323 read with Section 149, and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). [Para 2]

Incident Background – The appellants were part of an unlawful assembly that assaulted and caused the death of Madan and injured others. The incident was a result of a dispute over a shed constructed by one of the appellants, Jalim Singh, which was damaged by a buffalo belonging to the complainant party. [Para 3.1-3.4]

- Formation of Unlawful Assembly – The appellants were part of an unlawful assembly formed with the common object of assaulting the complainant party, leading to the death of Madan. [Para 3, 10, 13-15]

- Defence and Injuries – The defence argued that the accused were returning from the Police Station when they were assaulted by the complainant party, resulting in a free fight. Injuries sustained by the accused were not explained by the prosecution. [Para 17-19]

- Conviction Alteration – The Supreme Court altered the conviction under Section 302 IPC to Part-II of Section 304 IPC, considering the possibility that the accused did not have the intention to cause death. [Para 25-27]

Specific Performance of Contract – Dispute over execution of sale deed for property sold in 1990 – Suit filed after repeal of the Fragmentation Act – High Court judgement setting aside first appellate court’s decree for specific performance reversed by Supreme Court. [Paras 1, 3-4, 10-11]

Validity of Agreement to Sell – Agreement to Sell executed in 1990, before the repeal of the Fragmentation Act – High Court erroneously held agreement void due to alleged violation of Fragmentation Act – Supreme Court found that the agreement was not a conveyance and thus not barred under the Fragmentation Act. [Paras 6, 8-10]

Limitation Period and Execution of Sale Deed – Respondents delayed execution of sale deed – Suit filed by appellant within the limitation period – First Appellate Court’s finding that suit was within limitation upheld. [Paras 4-5, 10]

Admission of Agreement Execution – Respondent admitted during cross-examination to executing Agreement to Sell – Supreme Court held that such admission, along with full consideration and transfer of possession, negated other defenses by respondents. [Paras 4, 10]

Decision – Supreme Court allowed the appeal – High Court's judgement set aside, and the First Appellate Court's decree for specific performance restored – No order as to costs. [Paras 10-12]

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal in a Case of Aiding Suicide – Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Dying declaration doubted – Evidence of crucial witnesses unreliable – Prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 1-7]

Dying Declaration – Evaluation of dying declaration’s credibility – Absence of doctor’s endorsement and conflicting evidence raises serious doubts – Reliability compromised, leading to exclusion from consideration for conviction. [Paras 6-7]

Witness Testimony – Non-supportive crucial witnesses and withholding of material witness by the prosecution – Adverse inference drawn against the prosecution for not presenting the sister of the deceased as a witness. [Paras 3, 5]

Evidence and Proof – Requirement for unimpeachable quality of evidence if conviction is based solely on dying declaration – Prosecution’s failure to present convincing evidence results in appellant’s acquittal. [Para 3, 7]

Decision – Appellant acquitted due to prosecution’s inability to establish guilt – Orders against appellant quashed and set aside – Bail bond cancelled as appellant was on bail. [Para 7-9]

Property Dispute – Dispute over title and possession of two blocks of lands located in Thenkasi Taluk, Kadayanallurpet, Tamil Nadu – Petitioners, as legatees of Mohideen Abdul Khadar, claim interest in the said lands against Rahmath Beevi and others. [Para 2]

Title & Tenancy – Mohideen claimed title over the first scheduled property and sought protection of his possession over the second scheduled property under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 – Rahmath Beevi claimed ownership of the second scheduled property and sought vacant possession of the same. [Para 3-4]

Trial Court’s Decision – Mohideen’s claim over the first scheduled property upheld, but his claim over the second scheduled property dismissed – Rahmath Beevi granted relief of mandatory injunction for removal of Mohideen from certain properties and awarded damages. [Para 5]

Appellate Court’s Decision – Upheld Mohideen’s title over the first scheduled property and set aside the Trial Court’s judgment on the second scheduled property – Judgment in Rahmath Beevi’s suit also set aside. [Para 6]

High Court’s Decision – Confirmed the dimension of the second scheduled property in Rahmath Beevi’s plaint – Held that the notice under Section 106 of the 1882 Act was valid and that the petitioners were not entitled to protection under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. [Para 7-8]

Locus of Petitioners – Questions raised regarding the petitioners’ locus to maintain the petitions based on a testamentary instrument – Court held against the petitioners on merit without delving into the locus issue. [Para 9]

Decision – Petitions dismissed, and any interim order vacated – No order as to costs. [Para 10-12]

Civil Appeal – Suit for possession and mesne profits – Appellant contests judgment and order of High Court affirming Trial Court’s decree in favor of the respondent – Suit based on unregistered documents – Issue of Hiba (oral gift) raised – Appellant’s contention that unregistered documents do not confer ownership rights supported. [Para 1-10]

Property Ownership – Requirement of compulsory registration for transferring title to immovable property – Reference to sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act – No right, title, or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document – Judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) and other relevant judgments cited. [Para 10-13]

Maintaining Suit – Respondent’s argument that the judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) is prospective is rejected – Suit could not have been maintained on the basis of unregistered documents – Suit dismissed. [Para 14-15]