Mat.Appeal No.636 of 2010 Lisamma Thomas, appellant, challenges the order of the Family Court, Ettumanoor, in EA 252/2009 in EP 77/2008 in OP 643/2007 (dated 30 June 2010) that set aside a sale of her husband’s property under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. The underlying OP 643/2007 was filed by the husband’s debtor (Cherian) to recover money, resulting in attachment of property and a sale in execution. The sale was conducted in 2008 and delivery taken in 2009. Lisamma, alleged as additional judgment-debtor, contends the sale was tainted by fraud, collusion, and suppression of material facts, namely non-disclosure of attachment in the encumbrance certificate and concealment of facts. She argues that the application under Order 21 Rule 90 was filed after a period of limitation and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to execution proceedings; Article 127 prescribes a 60-day period from the sale, which had lapsed before 11/16/2009 when the application was filed. Lisamma invokes Section 17(1) of the Limitation Act, alleging discovery of fraud on 03/11/2009 to toll the period. The respondents maintain the sale’s validity and rely on fraud and collusion findings to justify setting aside the sale. The High Court ultimately holds that, despite findings of fraud, Lisamma must be afforded an opportunity to contest on merits, set aside the Family Court order, and remand for a merit-based decision with evidence."
ITA Nos. 47 and 77 of 2015 These appeals challenge a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Cochin Bench) in ITA Nos. 97 of 2014 and 39 of 2014 relating to AY 2010-2011. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the assessee’s claim under section 10A of the Income Tax Act after the Commissioner, invoking suo moto revision under section 263, had disallowed the claim for the section 10B exemption previously allowed by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue contends that, once the Commissioner finds the 10B benefit erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, the assessee cannot pivot to an alternative deduction under section 10A either before the Commissioner or the Tribunal; it relies on the Delhi High Court’s Regency Creations decision to support this, and argues that NTPC only allows raising questions of law before the Tribunal but does not permit fresh issues during revisional proceedings. The assessees counter that their entitlement to the statutory 10A benefit cannot be barred by an initial wrong claim under 10B and that NTPC confirms parties may raise questions bearing on tax liability before the Tribunal. The Kerala High Court, applying NTPC and distinguishing Regency Creations where appropriate, ultimately holds that the Tribunal was entitled to consider the 10A claim and that the questions framed should be answered in the assessee’s favour, dismissing the Revenue’s appeals.
This writ appeal arises from a dispute over the adjustment of terminal benefits of the deceased in the savings account of his widow, Sheela Julian, by Syndicate Bank. The respondent’s husband, Julian Gover, had availed a loan of Rs. 1,60,000 and died before repaying the first installment. The terminal benefits of the deceased, amounting to Rs. 3,38,546, were credited to the respondent’s SB account. Without prior notice or segregation of the terminal benefits (providence fund, gratuity, insurance surrender value), the Bank debited Rs. 1,32,557 from the respondent’s account, claiming a lien over the account under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act to satisfy the loan. The respondent sought refund of the entire amount debited. The Bank argued that the respondent acknowledged liability via Ext. R1(a) and therefore the lien was justified. The High Court examined Section 171, the concept of banker’s lien, and prevailing case-law on attachment of terminal benefits, gratuity, provident fund, and insurance surrender values. It emphasized that no suit or decree existed against the respondent, and there was no clear segregation of terminal benefits. It held that the Bank could not unilaterally appropriate the amount without clear undertakings or information and natural justice, including consent, and directed re-credit of the amount within three weeks. The appeal was dismissed, maintaining the respondent’s entitlement to the terminal benefits.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal appeal (CRL.A No.466 of 2007) arising from a murder trial. The sole accused, Vinu @ Kutten, challenged a conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC for the killing of his wife, allegedly on 27 May 2001, in the kitchen of the house belonging to PW2, Thiruvananthapuram. The II Additional Sessions Judge had found him guilty of the lesser offense (304 Part I) after holding that the prosecution failed to establish the requisite intention to cause death under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution’s case rested on the sole eye-witness PW2, who testified to seeing the accused inflict fatal injuries with a chopper. The weapon (MO1) and the clothing recovered at the accused’s residence, along with post‑mortem findings showing incised neck injuries, formed part of the corroborative evidence. The defense contended that PW2 was an interested relative and that there were inconsistencies, absence of independent witnesses, and speculative abscondence. The High Court examined res gestae considerations, the admissibility of Ext. P1 (FIR) and other statements, and the reliability of the sole eyewitness in light of jurisprudence on eyewitness testimony, including abscondence and motive relevance. After careful appraisal, the Court held that the trial court’s findings were sound, dismissed the appeal, and upheld the conviction and eight-year sentence under IPC 304 Part I.
Alvin, the third accused in Crime No.1206/2023 of the Anchalumoodu Police Station, Kollam, seeks pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC. The FIR, dated 15-11-2023, alleges that on 14-11-2023 at around 8:30 PM, the victim riding a motorcycle was waylaid by the accused along with others; after abusing him, the first accused slapped him and attempted to attack with a sword; the de facto complainant intervened, but the accused attacked him as well. The friends of the de facto complainant were also assaulted with a cricket bat and sticks. Five accused are named in connection with offences under IPC sections 294(b) (obscene act), 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (hurt), 324 (hurt by dangerous weapon), and 308 r/w 34 (attempt to cause culpable harm). The petitioner argues innocence and false implication, with no specific overt act attributed to him; he claims custodial interrogation is unnecessary and is willing to abide by stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor contends there is a specific overt act attributed to the petitioner and custodial interrogation and recovery are essential; granting pre-arrest bail would hamper the investigation. The court, citing Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and Sibbia, reiterates that anticipatory bail requires careful, case-specific discretion and rejects rigid guidelines; given the overt act and ongoing investigation, the court dismisses the application but grants a conditional option to surrender within 10 days, after which bail can be considered on merits.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC, challenging the continuation of proceedings in Crime No. 33/2023 of Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur. The petitioners, Jayasree Asokan (principal) and Nita Subramanian (vice-principal) of Sree Gokulam Public School, are accused of offences under IPC sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (hurt), and 506(1) read with 34, and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, allegedly for slapping a student and friends for singing in class. The State contends that the acts amount to offences and that there is prima facie cruelty, supported by statements under Cr.P.C. Sections 161 and 164 and a medical certificate. The petitioners rely on Jomi V. State of Kerala and Others (2024 (4) KLT 297) and Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another (2021 KHC 6593) to contend that the acts are disciplinary and not criminal. The respondent’s counsel cites 161/164 Cr.P.C. statements and medical records indicating distress. After hearing, the Court held that the overt acts were minor disciplinary measures and not of the serious nature required for the charged offences, following Jomi. Consequently, it quashed the proceedings, allowed the petition, and directed that no further action be taken in Crime No.33/2023.
J. Chackochan, a L.G. Sanskrit Full Time Teacher at SHU P School, Kannady, challenged an audit objection that his pay fixation in 2005-2006 included his part-time service (15.06.1998 to 08.09.2002) in computing eight years of service for a revised pay in the scale 6680-10790. His service record spans 11.10.1993 to 09.09.2002, with periods as FT and PT teacher, all approved by controlling officers. His pay was fixed at Rs. 7,650 in the 6680-10790 scale with effect from 01.09.2005 (Ext.P8), followed by higher fixations in 2009 and 2011 (Exts.P9 and P10). On audit, the Deputy Director of Education objected (Ext.P11) to including part-time service in pay fixation, arguing it could not be reckoned for benefits. The petitioner argued he was not at fault and drew on the principle laid down in the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohammed Rafiq Masih (White Washer), contending that no recovery could be ordered after a long interval where there was no mens rea. After hearing, the High Court held the audit objection unsustainable, emphasized the nine-year gap since fixation, and found no fault by the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed, Ext.P11 quashed, and the Masih doctrine applied to deny recovery.
LA.APP. NO. 73 OF 2017; LA.APP. NO. 217 OF 2017; CO NO. 48 OF 2018; LA.APP. NO. 51 OF 2018 This judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Ernakulam deals with three connected land acquisition appeals and a cross-objection arising from the acquisition for the Thankalam-Kozhippilly New Bye Pass Road crossing NH-49 in Kothamangalam. The State of Kerala challenged the reference court’s enhancement of compensation for lands categorized as VIII (wetland) and sought to distinguish it from dry land categories IV and V. The reference court had increased the compensation for category VIII to levels akin to IV and V, based on evidence that the same land possessed features indicating potential agricultural value and conversion. The court also dealt with injurious affection to remaining land, which the claimants sought to enhance, citing that the balance land was practically unusable; it held that injurious affection could be treated as part of excess compensation and attract interest. Kerala’s plea that wetlands cannot be equated with dry land was rejected; the court noted the wetland status post-2008 via the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, but accepted that the land showed conversion indicators such as coconut trees. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed, while the cross-objections were allowed to the extent discussed, including enhancement of injurious affection and costs as guided by precedent (Kader v. State of Kerala).
CRL.MC NO. 10563 OF 2023; CRL.MC NO. 10565 OF 2023; CRL.MC NO. 10154 OF 2023; CRL.MC NO. 10130 OF 2023 These four Criminal Miscellaneous Cases challenge the orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Kasaragod invoking Section 111 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners based on information arising from a single criminal case. The petitions contend that initiating proceedings under Sections 107–111 Cr.P.C. solely on the ground that the petitioners are accused in one case is unsustainable and results in an order devoid of application of mind. The court relies on Santhosh M.V. v. State of Kerala and others (2014) and Ahammad Kabeer v. State of Kerala and another (2014) to emphasize that merely because a person is named as an accused in one case does not automatically justify action under Sections 107/111 Cr.P.C.; there must be explicit, credible information indicating imminent breach of peace and public tranquility at a specific time and place, and the order must reflect the reasoning behind invoking preventive measures. The court notes that the objective of Section 107 is to prevent disturbances and that an order should not be a mechanical reproduction of case numbers. After examining Annexure-A1, the court finds a lack of application of mind and substantive justification, and accordingly quashes the Annexure-A1 orders in M.C. Nos. 173/2023, 154/2023, 111/2020 and 110/2023. The petitions are allowed, reinforcing the need for careful factual and legal basis when invoking Cr.P.C. preventive powers to avoid miscarriage of justice.
This is a criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No.153/24) heard by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. The petitioners, three accused in S.C. No.764/2023 arising from Parassala Police Station Crime No.1311/2022, challenged the validity of the final report filed by the head of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed for a sensational murder case—the death of Sharon Raj, allegedly resulting from a conspiracy to poison the victim after a relationship dispute. The SIT head, a Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.SP), filed the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., but the accused argued that only the officer-in-charge of a police station could file such a report and that delegation to a superior officer was impermissible. The Sessions Court had dismissed the CMP challenging the report. The High Court examined the relevant law: Cr.P.C. sections 173(2) and 173(3); Kerala Police Act, 2011 (Section 14(2)); and Government Order GO MS 124/2014/O creating District Crime Branch units, along with precedents (R.T. Kapur; A.S. Peter; Kuriachan Chacko; Bihar v. Lalu Singh; Narasimha Murthy distinctions). The Court held that the SIT head was a superior officer authorized to file the report, as per the law and GOs, and accordingly dismissed the petition. The decision upholds the validity of the final report and the committal order, finding no illegality in the SIT-based investigation.
This Kerala High Court appeal (MACA No. 3179 of 2022) arises from an award of the II Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, in O.P.(M.V) No.585/2018 (dated 08.03.2022) granting compensation to the legal heirs of a deceased victim. The appellant insurer challenges the quantum and the basis of the award, arguing that the motor accident itself was inadequately established (FIR belated by 17 days) and that inflated compensation was awarded without cogent evidence. The respondents-petitioners contend the accident was proven by evidence including Exts. A1, A2 and A8 and a postmortem certificate (Ext A3). The court scrutinizes the Tribunal’s computation, noting that ₹13,000 was fixed as monthly income on a notional basis absent supporting materials, and reduces it by ₹2,000 to ₹11,000, while allowing a 10% future prospects uplift for a death in 2017. It then deducts ₹60,000 for pain and suffering in line with the principle in Satinder Kaur, and applies the multiplier of 11 with 1/4 deduction for personal expenses. Relying on Pranay Sethi guidelines, the court awards loss of estate and funeral expenses and loss of consortium totaling ₹1,76,000, plus adjustments for funeral expenses ₹3,000. The recalculated total is ₹14,39,200 with portions carrying 7% or 7.5% interest, and the insurer is ordered to pay within two months from receipt of a certified copy, with adjustments for earlier deposit and circular disbursement. The appeal is allowed accordingly by order of Justice Mary Joseph.
CON.CASE(C)NO.2160 OF 2019 This Contempt of Court Case arises from WP(C) No.12200 of 2015 and concerns alleged willful disobedience of directions rendered by this Court on 25.02.2019, following the 12.10.2018 decision in WP(C) No.13120 of 2015 and connected matters. The petitioners (petitioners 3,5–7,9–12,14–21,24,25,27–35,38,40,42–43) challenge the delay or refusal by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) to implement higher pension benefits in accordance with the 2014 amendment and the subsequent Supreme Court judgments. The respondent EPFO contends that, in light of the Apex Court’s 04.11.2022 judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 8143–8144 of 2022 and connected matters (AIR 2022 SC 5634), the entitlement for higher pension requires reconsideration under the amended scheme and such reconsideration is to be carried out within a prescribed framework. The court notes the apex court’s holding that the G.S.R. 609(E) notification dated 22.08.2014 is legal and valid, with read-down directions for certain members and extensions of option periods. Consequently, the contempt petition is closed, but without prejudice to EPFO reconsidering petitioners’ entitlement in line with the 2022 apex court judgment. The order directs reconciliation of the entitlement within the statutory scheme and cites the need for adjustments as per the higher court’s directions, with a four-month extension explored where necessary.
W.A Nos 205, 206, 210, 218, 219 & 226 of 2021 These writ appeals concern the appointment of the Administrative Head/Principal of the Vocational Higher Secondary School, Karavaram, Thiruvananthapuram. The Government of Kerala issued orders in 2012 and related communications enabling provisional assignment of administrative responsibility for the Vocational Higher Secondary School section to the senior-most teacher in the cadre, with teaching duties retained and a special allowance payable. A post of Principal for the Vocational section was not created, prompting disputes about eligibility and seniority among three teachers: Priyadarsini S., Sindhu B., and Hariharan Pillai. The Director of General Education initially found Sindhu to be the senior-most based on certain entry dates; Priyadarsini contended she is the senior-most (entry 1/12/1995), while Hariharan Pillai advanced his own claim. The Learned Single Judge upheld Sindhu’s claim, prompting these appeals by Priyadarsini and Hariharan Pillai. The Division Bench (A. Muhamed Mustaque and Shoba Annama Eapen, JJ.) examines the Government orders, the lack of explicit rules prescribing qualification length for Principal, and the principle of seniority. Relying on the rule that seniority should be reckoned from date of entry into service and a precedent in Nirmala Devi, the Bench holds that Priyadarsini is entitled to be appointed as Principal for a vacancy arising after 1 June 2020, and sets aside the impugned judgment, leaving Hariharan Pillai and Sindhu’s inter-se dispute open. The writ appeals are disposed of accordingly.
BAIL APPL. NO. 616 OF 2024 This Bail Application, filed under Section 439 CrPC, concerns the first accused Sanu Salim @ Sanofar in Crime No.1657/2023 of Kadakkavoor Police Station, Kadakkavoor, Thiruvananthapuram. The prosecution alleges offences under IPC sections 294(b), 341, 427, 323, 324 and 307 r/w section 34 on the night of 10-12-2023 at the KTDC Beer Parlour, Vakkom, following allegations that the accused boasted of involvement in Crime No.1650/2023; the de facto complainant was assaulted, and property damaged during pursuit in a car. The petitioner maintains he is falsely implicated and notes that he sustained injuries in the incident (Annexure-C FIR); he was arrested on 10.12.2023 but his remand was recorded only on 12.12.2023. He has remained in judicial custody for about 50 days. He argues that investigation is practically complete and recoveries have been effected, so continued detention is unnecessary. The Public Prosecutor counters that the petitioner has criminal antecedents, is involved in other cases, and could intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence if released. After evaluating the materials, the learned judge finds that detention is not required given the near-completion of investigation, and grants bail under stringent conditions: bond for Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO on Saturdays for a month or until final report, a prohibition on inducement or tampering with witnesses, surrender of passport if any, and potential cancellation or modification of bail for violation, with guidance from Sushila Aggarwal. The order is signed by C.S. Dias.
WA 240/2021; WA 1354/2021 This appeal arises from two writ appeals challenging the Kerala High Court Single Judge’s order dated 18 May 2020 in WP(C) No.3371 of 2019, concerning ground-handling services at Cochin International Airport (CIAL). CELEBI Airport Service India Private Limited, the ground-handling contractor, contended that several central and state labour and employment statutes were misdirected to the State Government, whereas the Central Government should administer them under the Industrial Disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act, and related enactments. The State of Kerala and labour authorities sought to regulate labour compliance through state action, while the private airlines and Inter Globe Aviation/AGILE groups (non-parties) joined to challenge the direction that central authority should oversee specific statutes. The court’s core framing is whether Ground Handling Services constitute “air transport service” under the Airports Authority Act, 1994, or fall under central regulation via the 2018 Regulation on Ground Handling and the definition of “Ground Handling Agency.” The bench carefully navigates jurisprudence including the Delhi International Airport (DIAL) decision to conclude that, for several central legislations, the Central Government is the appropriate authority; while local acts fall to the State, subject to the limits. The appeals are dismissed, with clarifications on the ambit of “appropriate Government” and the State’s role in implementing only those local laws empowered by statute.
FAO Nos.59 of 2023 and 13 of 2024 These two connected First Appeals from Orders arise from a common order dated 6 August 2021 passed by the Additional Sub Court, Kollam, dismissing petitions under Order IX Rule 9 CPC for restoration of a suit in O.S. No.556 of 2010 and a counterclaim. The suit, filed for specific performance, setting aside a sale deed and related relief, involved a transaction concerning the plaint schedule property and an accompanying counterclaim for reinstating a demolished wall. The trial court dismissed the suit and counterclaim after ruling that the plaintiff and the second defendant failed to show sufficient cause for non‑appearance on the date of trial, which was listed for evidence on 18 July 2019. Thereafter, petitions under Order IX Rule 9 for restoration and for condonation of delay were filed by both sides; the trial court rejected them in a common order. The appellants challenge this order on the ground that liberal, justice‑oriented criteria should apply to restoration. The High Court notes that liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause” under Order IX Rule 9 (and related Rule 13) promotes substantial justice and cites G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada and Peeves Enterprises v. Muhammed Asharaf to endorse this approach. On analysis of the explanations (back pain for the plaintiff and abroad for the second defendant), the court finds bonafide reasons and sets aside the trial court’s dismissal. The appeals are allowed; the common order is set aside; the suit and counterclaim are to be disposed of expeditiously, within four months.
Shamnath, the accused in CC No. 791/2022 arising from Crime No. 3597/2020 of Pathanamthitta Police Station, faced offences under sections 294(b) and 332 of the IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner abused a nursing assistant at the Government Primary Health Centre, Omalloor, and obstructed the official duties of the victim. In the present Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under section 482 CrPC, the petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings on the ground of a settlement between the parties, supported by an affidavit from the victim, who also states she has no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor, while expressing reservations about quashing non-compoundable offences solely on the basis of settlement, concedes that the matter is settled. The High Court reviews the submissions and the record, and relies on Supreme Court precedents such as State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) and the decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab to frame the governing principle: quashing is permissible under Section 482 CrPC for non-compoundable offences that are private in nature and settled, provided the offence is not of a heinous or societal-implicating character. After balancing the facts, the court holds the dispute private, the settlement genuine, and that the consequences of continuing the prosecution are disproportionate. Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed and all further proceedings in CC No. 791/2022 are quashed.
This is a Criminal Leave Petition (Crl.L.P. No. 226 of 2023) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, heard by a single judge of the Kerala High Court. The petitioner seeks condonation of a 554-day delay in filing a Criminal Leave Petition against an acquittal recorded in CC No. 820/2008 (JFCM-I, Kollam) and Crime No. 671/2007 (Kundara Police Station). The impugned judgment of 18.09.2018 in CC 820/2008 acquitted the 2nd respondent of the charges of cheating and misappropriation of trust, prompting the petitioner to challenge the order by way of leave petition filed on 17.02.2022. The petitioner attributes the delay to extraordinary events, notably the August 2018 Kerala floods, the consequent business closure, financial loss, mental distress, and later the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that these elements constitute “sufficient cause” for delay and that liberal judicial discretion should apply. The respondent opposes condonation, highlighting belated filing for a certified copy and lack of substantiation for the delay, as well as an inordinate lapse without credible evidence of prejudice. The court, relying on Katiji and Esha Bhattacharjee, clarifies that while liberal, the concept of “sufficient cause” must be balanced with substantial justice and cannot excuse gross negligence or fanciful grounds. It holds that a flood lasting only a few days cannot justify a delay of over a year, especially where evidence supporting the claimed hardship is not adduced. Consequently, the petition for leave and the associated condonation petition are dismissed.Overall, the court emphasizes that condonation of delay must be grounded in reasonable, substantiated facts and not on general or speculative grounds.
3461/2022; 3472/2022; 3490/2022; 7193/2022 The batch writ petitions challenge the computation of gratuity payable to former employees of several co‑operative banks in Malappuram district under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The banks had adopted a special gratuity scheme and paid Rs. 10 lakh to the petitioners on retirement, alleging that this figure complies with the cap under Section 4(3) of the Act. The petitioners contend they are legally entitled to the full gratuity provided by the Act, with any excess over the scheme amount to be paid by the employer, in accordance with Sections 4(2) and 4(5) of the Act. The respondents deny liability beyond the scheme; LIC has paid Rs. 10 lakh to some petitioners and contends it bears no further liability. The court cites Chandrasekharan Nair v. Kerala State Co‑operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (2017 (4) KLT 276) to reiterate that the liability to pay gratuity rests with the employer under Sec. 4(2), and higher amounts are payable under Sec. 4(5). Consequently, the court holds that the balance gratuity beyond the LIC payment is the employer’s obligation. The petitions are allowed, and the banks are directed to disburse the balance gratuity within three months from the copy of the judgment, with interest at 6% p.a. if delayed.
This Kerala High Court OP(KAT) challenges the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of OA(EKM) No.258 of 2017, concerning disciplinary action against K. Balakrishnan, a Senior Clerk in the Department of Health Services who retired on 31 December 2016. The disciplinary proceedings culminated in a punishment of barring one increment for one year without cumulative effect, with the suspension period treated as eligible leave. The Tribunal had dismissed the original application, holding that interference was unwarranted. The petitioner contends bias in the disciplinary process, arguing that the enquiry officer was the same officer who acted as the State Public Information Officer in a related RTI matter, and that the State Information Commission’s findings of delay in providing information reveal a prejudicial backdrop; he also asserts that the Tribunal did not hear counsel before dismissing the OA. The respondents defend the actions, asserting misconduct and dereliction of duty in 2010–2011 and stating that the disciplinary proceedings and penalties were appropriate. The High Court, citing Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Government of Tamil Nadu v. Munuswamy Mudaliar, emphasizes that bias can be inferred from reasonable apprehension of prejudice in the mind of a party, and that an enquiry officer must be independent and impartial. It concludes that the dual role of the enquiry officer as RTI officer created a real likelihood of bias, and thus allows the petition, setting aside annexures detailing the punishment.
