FACTS:

The appellant, Hamant Yashwant Dhage, was the respondent in two criminal appeals arising from a common judgment of the High Court of Bombay.

The Supreme Court, in its order dated April 12, 2010, directed the concerned magistrate to ensure proper investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The appellant, acting as a complainant, approached the Judicial Magistrate F.C. Court No. 2, Pune, who rejected the prayer for the registration of an F.I.R., citing the absence of specific direction from the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

Whether the earlier order of the Supreme Court dated April 12, 2010, warranted the registration of an F.I.R. by the police before commencing investigation.

Whether the delay in lodging the F.I.R. after April 12, 2010, should affect the investigation already carried out by the police.

HELD:

In view of the broad consensus among the counsel for the parties, the court directs the concerned magistrate and the police officer to rectify their mistake by ensuring the registration of an appropriate F.I.R. The court emphasizes that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. after April 12, 2010, shall not affect the already conducted investigation. The police are instructed to complete the investigation within six months and submit their final views to the magistrate through a proper report. The learned magistrate is directed to handle the matter strictly in accordance with the law based on the materials available on record, without being influenced by orders passed by different courts.

REFERRED CASES:

Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Afaq Jahan Smt., (2006) 1 SCC 627

Facts:

Richa Mishra, an Excise Sub Inspector, participated in the selection process for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.). Despite qualifying at each stage, her name was excluded from the list of successful candidates due to exceeding the age limit of 25 years.

Issues:

The appellant claimed entitlement to age relaxation under Rule 8 of the 2000 Rules, citing her status as a government servant.

The initial writ petition was dismissed on the grounds that she entered government service after the specified cut-off date.

The subsequent appeal sought age relaxation under Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules.

Held:

The selection process began before the promulgation of the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2005. The requisitions and advertisement specified that appointments would be made under Rules, 2000, making the recruitment validly undertaken under those rules.

The appellant's failure to challenge the advertisement precluded her from arguing that recruitment should have been made under Rules, 2005. Therefore, the recruitment was rightfully conducted under Rules, 2000.

Rule 8 of Rules, 2000 did not provide specific age relaxation for women candidates. However, the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997, along with State Services Examination Rules, 2003, allowed for a 10-year age relaxation for women candidates, which was applicable to the appellant.

Rules, 1997, being specific and framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, aimed to encourage women's participation in public employment. Rule 4 of Rules, 1997, should be universally applied for women candidates seeking appointments in public service in Chhattisgarh.

The competitive examination for Dy.S.P. was conducted under State Services Examination Rules, 2003, which incorporated Rules, 1997, filling the lacuna in Rules, 2000. The omission of Rules, 1997, in Rule 8 of Rules, 2000 was not intentional but rectified in Rules, 2005.

Interpreting subordinate legislation aims to achieve social justice. The intention of the rule-making authorities was always to grant age relaxation to women candidates, as evidenced by subsequent amendments to Rules, 2005.

The appellant was entitled to age relaxation under Rule 4 of Rules, 1997, read with Examination Rules, 2003. The court directed the respondents to appoint her as Dy.S.P. from the date her juniors in the merit list were appointed.

Referred Cases:

A.A. Calton Vs. Director of Education 1983 3 SCC 33

B.L. Gupta Vs. M.C.D., (1998) 9 SCC 223

Badshah Vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188

Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs. Veena Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70

N.T. Devin Katti Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission, (1990) 3 SCC 157

P. Ganeshwar Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1988) Sup SCC 740

Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Keilla Kumar Palliwal, (2007) 10 SCC 260

Rameshchandra Daga Vs. Rameshwari Daga, AIR 2005 SC 422

Shailesh Dhairyawan Vs. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla, (2015) 11 SCALE 684

State of Punjab Vs. Arun Kumar Aggarwal, (2007) 10 SCC 402

Y.V. Rangaiah Vs. J. Shreenivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC 284

Facts:

The Appellant, an employee of Bank of India, applied for voluntary retirement on 16.11.2000.

Prior to the introduction of the voluntary retirement scheme, the Bank had issued a memo to the Appellant regarding irregularities.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Appellant through a charge-sheet served on 02.03.2001, to which the Appellant admitted the charges.

The Bank accepted the voluntary retirement application on 19.06.2001 after imposing a penalty of reduction in basic pay on 20.03.2001.

Issues:

Whether the Bank had the right to initiate disciplinary proceedings after the introduction of the voluntary retirement scheme.

Whether the voluntary retirement application could be considered only after the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.

Whether the punishment imposed on the Appellant was legal and justified.

Held:

Bank's Right to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings: The Court held that the Bank was within its rights to issue a charge-sheet to the Appellant even after the introduction of the voluntary retirement scheme. The disciplinary proceedings were rightly initiated as the memo was served prior to the scheme's introduction.

Consideration of Voluntary Retirement Application: The Court affirmed that the voluntary retirement application could be considered only after the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, and the Bank's acceptance on 19.06.2001 was justified.

Continuation of Employee-Employer Relationship: The relationship of employee and employer between the Appellant and the Bank continued until 19.06.2001. The Bank had the right to take disciplinary actions against the Appellant until that date.

Imposition of Punishment: The Court found no illegality or perversity in the disciplinary proceedings or the punishment order dated 20.03.2001. The Appellant's admission of charges justified the imposed penalty of reduction in basic pay.

Deemed Retirement and Application Date: The Court rejected the argument that the Appellant was deemed retired on 31.12.2000 due to non-compliance by the Bank. The Scheme did not provide for automatic acceptance, and the retirement date was rightly considered as 19.06.2001.

Unblemished Career and Quantum of Punishment: The Court dismissed the claim that an unblemished career warranted no disciplinary proceedings. It upheld the punishment's leniency, considering the nature of the charges and the Appellant's overall performance.

The appeal was dismissed. The impugned order was upheld, though on reasons other than those given by the High Court. No costs.

Referred Cases:

Decided on : 08-02-2016

Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 - Regulation 4(1)

Service Law — Application for Voluntary Retirement — Appellant applied for voluntary retirement on whereas he was served with the charge-sheet. He, however, admitted the charges. This resulted in imposition of punishment on the Appellant. It was followed by acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement by the Bank. — Bank was within its rights to issue a charge-sheet to the Appellant, the Appellant was in the employment of the Bank and, therefore, he could be subjected to face disciplinary proceedings as per the Rules. Secondly, since the memo was served on the Appellant prior to introduction of the Scheme, the disciplinary proceedings were rightly initiated by serving a charge-sheet on the Appellant after coming into force of the Scheme on 01.11.2000. Thirdly, in terms of the Scheme, the Appellant's application could be considered only after conclusion of disciplinary proceedings and, therefore, the Bank was right in considering the application and eventually accepting it on 19.06.2001. Fourthly, the relationship of employee and employer between the Appellant and the Bank continued till 19.06.2001 and, therefore, the Bank was within its rights to take any action under the service rules against the Appellant up to 19.06.2001. It is not in dispute that the Bank took all the disciplinary actions prior to 19.06.2001 and then accepted the application for voluntary retirement on 19.06.2001. Such action, in our view, was just, legal and proper.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Mehul M. Gupta, Shrinath Agrawal and R.P. Gupta, Advocates, for the Appellant; S. Gopakumaran Nair, Sr. Adv., T.G. Narayanan Nair and K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Advocates, for the Respondent

Cases Referred

Balwant Singh Vs. Anand Kumar Sharma, (2003) 3 SCC 433

Visitor, AMU Vs. K.S. Misra, (2007) 8 SCC 593

Final Result : Allowed

Facts:

The case involves the construction of the Millennium Bus Depot near Nizamuddin Bridge and behind J.P. Power Station. A writ petition was filed in the public interest seeking the demolition of the bus depot, citing a violation of the Master Plan 2021 for Delhi, which designated the area as 'river flood plain.'

Issues:

Whether the construction of the bus depot violates the Master Plan 2021 for Delhi.

Whether the authorities were granted sufficient time to amend the Master Plan.

Held:

Although the High Court granted the appellants an opportunity to amend the Master Plan, almost four and a half years had passed, and no amendment had occurred. The Millennium Bus Depot, as per the existing Master Plan, cannot legally operate. The Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) failed to adhere to an undertaking to vacate the Bus Depot, and its application for an extension was dismissed due to the failure to amend the Master Plan.

A meeting chaired by the Chief Minister of the Government of NCT of Delhi highlighted the urgent need to protect the land along the river bed of the Yamuna River. The Chief Minister suggested relocating the Bus Depot to an alternate location in a time-bound manner.

The chance given to the appellants to amend the Master Plan was based on their submission that the Bus Depot served a greater public purpose and did not pose an environmental threat. The exercise to consider this aspect did not take place, possibly due to disputes between L&DO and DDA on land ownership. Recent developments, including orders from the National Green Tribunal, indicated movement in addressing the issue.

Given the ongoing studies by an Expert Committee to determine the viability of the area for the Bus Depot, the court deferred the decision to demolish the Bus Depot. One year was granted to the DTC, during which it must either amend the Master Plan or shift the Bus Depot.

Facts:

Prison reforms have been a recurring topic in discussions and decisions by this Court spanning the last 35 years. The focus is on the treatment of prisoners with dignity, emphasizing the humane treatment of individuals incarcerated.

Issues:

The issues addressed include the functioning of the Under Trial Review Committee, effective implementation of Section 436 and Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and concerns related to the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

They also delves into legal aid, release of undertrial prisoners in compoundable offenses, and the overall living conditions of prisoners.

Held:

The Under Trial Review Committee in every district should meet quarterly, with the first meeting scheduled on or before March 31, 2016. The committee should address the release of undertrial prisoners and convicts, focusing on those eligible for release due to completed sentences or granted remission.

The committee should specifically address the implementation of Section 436 and Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ensuring the release of undertrial prisoners at the earliest, particularly those unable to furnish bail bonds due to poverty.

The State Legal Services Authority, in coordination with the District Legal Services Committee, should ensure an adequate number of competent lawyers are available to assist undertrial prisoners and convicts, especially the indigent, to avoid poor legal aid.

The committee should look into the release of undertrial prisoners in compoundable offenses, exploring the possibility of compounding offenses instead of mandatory trials.

The Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police in charge of prisons must ensure proper utilization of funds for the prisoners' living conditions, including health, hygiene, food, clothing, and rehabilitation.

The Ministry of Home Affairs should expedite the implementation of the Management Information System in all Central and District Jails, ensuring better and effective management of prisons and prisoners.

An annual review of the Model Prison Manual 2016 should be conducted by the Ministry of Home Affairs, taking into consideration any necessary changes and avoiding the manual becoming obsolete.

The Under Trial Review Committee should address the issues raised in the Model Prison Manual 2016, including regular jail visits as suggested in the manual.

Decision: The Court emphasized the need for comprehensive prison reforms and issued specific directives to address various aspects affecting the treatment and living conditions of prisoners.

Referred Cases:

Bhim Singh Vs. Union of India, (2014) 4 RCR(Criminal) 234

Rama Murthy Vs. State of Karnataka, (1997) 2 SCC 642

Sunil Batra II Vs. Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 488

T.K. Gopal Vs. State of Karnataka, (2000) 6 SCC 168

Facts:

The case involves an FIR filed by respondent No.2 against the appellants. The investigations resulted in three closure reports submitted by different investigating officers. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed under relevant sections after further investigation by a fourth officer.

Issues:

The consideration of closure reports, the validity of investigations, and the alleged roles of different appellants in the harassment case.

Held:

The Chief Judicial Magistrate had duly considered the second Closure Report dated 10.07.2003 while passing the order for further investigation on 6.9.2006. The investigation leading to the third closure report dated 27.2.2007 was deemed a nullity as it violated an express judicial order. The appellants' plea that the second and third closure reports were not considered during the fourth investigation was rejected. (Para 19 & 22)

Appellant Nos. 4, 5, and 6, being sisters-in-law of respondent No.2, had no direct concern with the relationship between respondent No.2 and appellant Nos. 1 to 3. No clear allegations were leveled against them, and the proceedings initiated against them were deemed unjustified and were therefore quashed. (Para 23)

The trial court was directed to proceed only against appellant Nos. 1 to 3 (parents-in-law and husband of respondent No.2) under Sections 498A and 506 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. (Para 24)

Referred Cases:

Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak, (2013) 5 SCC 762

Facts:

The case involves the eviction of employees residing in flats owned by the Central Bank of India under the Public Premises Act, 1971. The employees contested the eviction, claiming a right to retain the premises based on their conditions of service. The dispute arose from the Bank's intention to demolish buildings for redevelopment.

Issues:

Whether the employees had a right to retain the allotted premises based on their conditions of service.

Whether the Bank's redevelopment plans violated the lease agreement with the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA).

The adequacy of efforts made for an amicable settlement through mediation.

Held:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the employees had no right to retain the allotted premises as it was not a part of their conditions of service. The Court emphasized that the employees' claims regarding the violation of the lease agreement between MHADA and the Bank were inconsequential to their standing in the matter. The Court granted the employees time until March 31, 2016, to vacate the premises. No costs were imposed on the employees, and the Court refrained from directing them to pay damages to the Bank for the use and occupation of the premises.

Referred Cases:

Salem Advocate Bar Assn. II Vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. P Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24

K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226

Facts:

The case involves Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2016 between M/S. V. L. S. Finance Ltd. and S. P. Gupta and another. The appeal was heard by Justices Dipak Misra and N.V. Ramana on February 5, 2016.

Issues:

The primary issues revolve around the withdrawal/non-pressing of the application under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1993. The accused persons contested the application, leading to considerations regarding the permissibility of such contestation.

Held:

A significant amount of time has passed since the issuance of summons in 2003, despite challenges to the order issuing summons. This delay is noted (Para 27).

The court observes an abuse of the legal process, where litigants challenge orders in superior courts to procrastinate proceedings (Para 31).

The Public Prosecutor, when filing an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C., bears the responsibility to be satisfied based on legal parameters. The court highlights the importance of the Public Prosecutor's independent decision (Para 47).

The court clarifies that before the Public Prosecutor moves the application, the court has no role. If the Public Prosecutor intends to withdraw or not press the application, they are entitled to do so. The court cannot compel them otherwise (Para 47).

The accused persons cannot contest the application or file documents. This liberty granted to the accused persons is deemed inconsistent with the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court emphasizes that the victim, not the accused persons, is aggrieved in such a situation. The Magistrate is directed to proceed with the cases in accordance with the law (Para 47).

The High Court erred in permitting the accused persons to file an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. in the present case (Para 45).

Decision: The court allows the appeals and directs the Magistrate to proceed with the cases in accordance with the law.

Referred Cases:

Abdul Karim Vs. State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC 710

Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal, (2004) 7 SCC 338

Bairam Muralidhar Vs. State of A.P., (2014) 10 SCC 380

Balwant Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (1977) 4 SCC 448

Bansi Lal Vs. Chandan Lal, (1976) 1 SCC 421

Patel Narshi Thakershi Vs. Pradyuman Singh Ji Arjun Singh Ji, AIR 1970 SC 1273

R.R. Verma Vs. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 402

Rahul Agarwal Vs. Rakesh Jain, (2005) 2 SCC 377

Rajender Kumar Jain Vs. State, (1980) 3 SCC 435

Sheonandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 194

State of Bihar Vs. Ram Naresh Pandey, AIR 1957 SC 389

State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568

Subhash Chander Vs. State Chandigarh Admn., (1980) 2 SCC 155

Subrata Roy Sahara Vs. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470

V.S. Achuthanandan Vs. R. Balakrishna Pillai, (1994) 4 SCC 299

Vijaykumar Baldev Mishra alias Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 687

Facts:

The deceased, a truck driver, met with an accident during work and suffered fatal injuries.

Appellants, family members of the deceased, filed a claim for compensation before the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation.

The employer (Respondent No. 2) contested liability, citing the deceased's negligence.

The Commissioner awarded compensation, considering the employment details and circumstances of the accident.

The High Court reduced the compensation without clear reasoning, also waiving the penalty and interest.

Issues:

Whether the deceased's death occurred during the course of employment?

Whether the High Court's reduction of compensation without providing substantial reasons is justified?

Is the waiver of penalty and interest by the High Court appropriate?

Held:

The deceased's death arose out of and during the course of employment, as established by the facts and circumstances.

The High Court erred in reducing the compensation without offering substantial reasons. The proviso to Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act requires a substantial question of law for appeal.

The Appellants are entitled to the originally awarded compensation of Rs. 10,92,850/-, along with funeral expenses and interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident.

The Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount with the Employees Compensation Commissioner within six weeks.

The appeal is allowed.

Referred Cases:

Dover Navigation Company Limited Vs. Isabella Craig, (1940) A.C. 190

Harijan Mangri Siddakka Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 16 SCC 115

Harris Vs. Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd., (1939) AC 71

Janaki Ammal Vs. Divisional Engineer, (1956) 2 LLJ 233

Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 273

Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. P Ltd. Vs. Ibrahim Mohd. Issak, (1969) 2 SCC 607

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mastan, (2006) 2 SCC 641

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Siby George, (2012) 12 SCC 540

Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 1 SCC 289

Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation Vs. Francis De Costa, (1996) 6 SCC 1

T.S. Shylaja Vs. Oriental Insurance Co., (2014) 2 SCC 587

Ved Prakash Vs. Premi Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 1