When Can Courts Interfere with Punishments in Departmental Proceedings? Reaffirming the “Shockingly Disproportionate” Standard and Employer’s Discretion in Disciplinary Penalties

Courts may intervene in disciplinary punishments only when the penalty is “shockingly disproportionate” to the misconduct proved—reaffirming Supreme Court precedent on limited judicial review and clarifying adjustments in cases involving medical leave. Judgment upholds existing precedent, serves as binding authority within the jurisdiction, and clarifies application in police disciplinary matters.   Summary Category Data Case […]

Can Prolonged Custody Alone Justify Bail in Serious Offence Cases Under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterated that in cases involving serious allegations—such as murder, criminal conspiracy, and offences under the SC/ST Act—prolonged custody is not by itself a sufficient reason to grant bail. The judgment follows and applies established Supreme Court precedent, affirming that the gravity of the crime remains paramount. This ruling provides […]

Can a Matrimonial Dispute FIR Under Sections 323, 342, and 506 IPC Be Quashed on the Basis of Settlement Between Parties Under Section 528 of BNSS?

The High Court, reaffirming established principles, clarified that FIRs stemming from matrimonial disputes under Sections 323, 342, and 506 IPC can be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, if the parties have amicably settled the matter and the complainant supports quashing. This judgment follows and applies Full Bench and Supreme […]

Does a Settlement During Appeal in Motor Accident Claims Permit Modification of Tribunal Awards, and Are Such Mediated Agreements Binding? — Precedent Affirmed by Punjab & Haryana High Court

The court confirms that settlements reached in mediation during pendency of appeals in motor accident claims are legally binding and can be implemented by modifying tribunal awards; the judgment upholds the enforceability of such mediated agreements under existing law, and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in motor accident claim matters.   Summary Category […]

Does a Challenge to Government Servant Transfers Become Infructuous if No Interim Relief is Granted and the Employee Joins the Transferred Post?

The Uttarakhand High Court reaffirmed that, where a government servant challenges a transfer but joins the transferred post due to lack of interim relief, the writ petition is rendered infructuous. This judgment upholds existing precedent and serves as binding authority for similar government service transfer matters.   Summary Category Data Case Name WPSS/1136/2023 of SITA […]

Does Petition for Parole under Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Act Survive When Last Rites Are Completed Prior to Decision? Reaffirming Procedural Mandate on Prayer Infructuity

The High Court reaffirmed that a parole petition filed under Article 226 and the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act becomes infructuous if the event giving rise to the prayer (attendance at last rites) is completed before adjudication; the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn and does not lay down new substantive law. This reiterates […]

Can Proceedings Under Section 174-A IPC Continue After Settlement and Withdrawal of Complaint in Cheque Dishonour Cases? – High Court Affirms Abuse of Process Doctrine as Binding Law

The High Court has expressly reaffirmed that once the main proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are amicably settled and withdrawn, continued prosecution under Section 174-A IPC is an abuse of process. This judgment upholds existing precedent and serves as binding authority for all subordinate courts dealing with similar fact patterns in […]

When Can a Regular Second Appeal Be Dismissed for Non-Prosecution? No Change in Law as High Court Affirms Existing Practice

A second appeal left unprosecuted despite service of notice on the appellants can be dismissed for non-prosecution; the High Court reiterates established procedure without addressing questions of law on merits. The decision affirms current judicial practice and holds binding value within jurisdiction but does not set new legal precedent.   Summary Category Data Case Name […]

Does the Principle of Equal Treatment Bar “Pick and Choose” Appointment Policies by the State When No Legal Disqualification Exists? — Existing Precedent Affirmed by Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirms that the State cannot selectively deny appointments to equally placed candidates, absent statutory bar or proven misconduct, and must treat all similarly situated candidates equally; follows judgments in LPA No. 290/2025 and LPA No. 1037/2025. The ruling has binding precedential value for service selection disputes in government recruitment […]

Can Bail Be Granted under Section 483 BNSS in Cases Under Sections 143, 323, 341, 365, and 364A IPC on the Basis of Compromise? Clarification on Whether Compromise and Parity with Co-Accused Justifies Bail; Judgment as Authoritative Guidance for Rajasthan Trial Courts

The Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed that bail can be granted under Section 483 BNSS, considering parity with co-accused and the existence of compromise between parties, even where serious sections like 364A IPC are invoked, provided the complainant has no objection. This judgment upholds earlier bail precedent and provides practical guidance for subordinate courts in Rajasthan. […]

Can Financial Benefits from Retrospective Promotion Be Denied to an Acquitted Employee Due to the Pendency of a Criminal Appeal? — Upholding Article 14 and Article 300A as Binding Authority

The Orissa High Court affirms that, in the absence of any express service rule, the mere pendency of a criminal appeal after acquittal cannot justify denial of the financial benefits accruing from retrospective promotion. This judgment upholds established constitutional guarantees, clarifies principles of equality and property rights of employees in public service, and shall serve […]

Can Appellate Authorities Condone Delay Beyond 120 Days Under the Payment of Gratuity Act? Existing Law Reaffirmed as Binding Authority

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana has reaffirmed that appeals under the Payment of Gratuity Act must be filed within 60 days, extendable by a further 60 days only on showing sufficient cause—thus, delay beyond 120 days cannot be condoned. This judgment follows Supreme Court authority and is binding on subordinate courts, reinforcing strict […]