{"id":100455,"date":"1995-11-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-11-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995"},"modified":"2015-08-29T16:21:29","modified_gmt":"2015-08-29T10:51:29","slug":"union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India & Ors vs Binod Bihari Behera on 14 November, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India & Ors vs Binod Bihari Behera on 14 November, 1995<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC, Supl. (4) 728 JT 1995 (8)\t223<\/div>\n
Author: J S Verma<\/div>\n
Bench: Verma, Jagdish Saran (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBINOD BIHARI BEHERA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT14\/11\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\nBENCH:\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\nVENKATASWAMI K. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 SCC  Supl.  (4) 728 JT 1995 (8)\t223\n 1995 SCALE  (6)454\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t  JUDGMENT
\nJ.S. VERMA, J. :\n<\/p>\n
     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
     This appeal  by special  leave is\tagainst the Judgment
\ndated 30th  March, 1992\t of the\t Division Bench\t of the High
\nCourt of  Orissa, by which the writ petition (OJC No. 543 of
\n1988) filed by the respondent has been allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondent  was  a  Sub-Inspector  in\tthe  Central
\nIndustrial  Security  Force  (for  short  `the\tForce’).  He
\nvendered his  resignation, which  was accepted by the Deputy
\nInspector-General (D.I.G.)  of the  Force on 17\/10\/1984. The
\nrespondent  then,  on  4\/12\/1984  applied  to  withdraw\t his
\nresignation and\t in the alternative prayed for re-enlistment
\nin  the\t  Force.  Both\tthese  prayers\twere  rejected.\t The
\nrespondent, then  filed the  writ petition under Article 226
\nof the\tConstitution in\t the  High  Court,  which  has\tbeen
\nallowed by  the impugned  judgment.  Hence  this  appeal  by
\nspecial leave.\n<\/p>\n
     Two grounds  were urged in the High Court in support of
\nthe writ  petition. The first ground was that the D.I.G. was
\nnot the\t competent authority  under the\t relevant  rules  to
\naccept the  resignation on  account of\twhich there  was  no
\nvalid acceptance of the resignation before its withdrawal on
\n4\/12\/1984. The\tother contention  was that  the rejection of
\nthe prayer  for re-enlistment as a member of the Force after
\nacceptance of  the resignation\twas an arbitrary exercise of
\nthe discretionary power conferred by the relevant rules. The
\nHigh Court  has accepted  both the  contentions. However, in
\nview of\t the acceptance\t of the\t First contention  the\tHigh
\nCourt has  directed reinstatement  of the  respondent on the
\npayment of  one-third arrears  of salary  together with\t the
\nother service benefits.\n<\/p>\n
     The first\tquestion before us relates to the competence
\nof the\tD.I.G. of the Force to accept the resignation of the
\nrespondent. The\t relevant provisions with reference to which
\nthe point  has to  be decided  are Section  5 of the Central
\nIndustrial Security  Force Act,\t 1968 (for  Short `the Act’)
\nand Rule  11 of\t the Rules  framed under  the Act. Section 5
\nreads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     “5. Appointment of members of the Force.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     –\tThe   appointment  of\tthe  enrolled
\n     members of the Force shall rest with the
\n     Director-General who shall exercise that
\n     power  in\taccordance  with  rules\t made
\n     under this Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Provided that  the power  of appointment
\n     under this section may also be exercised
\n     by such other supervisory officer as the
\n     Central Government\t may be order specify
\n     in this behalf.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 22\t of the Act confers the rule making power on
\nthe Central Government for carrying out the purposes of this
\nAct. The  Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 (for
\nshort `the  Rules’) have been made by the Central Government
\nin exercise  of this  power. Rule 3-1 relates to composition
\nof  the\t Force\tcomprising  of\t`supervisory  officers’\t and
\n`members of the Force’, wherein, Deputy Inspector-General is
\nnamed as  a supervisory\t officer while\tInspector  and\tSub-
\nInspector, etc.,  are specified as the members of the Force.
\nChapter IV  of the  Rules relates  to  `Recruitment  to\t the
\nForce’ and therein Rule 11 is as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     “11. Powers  of appointment.- Subject to
\n     the provisions  of\t the  Act  and\tthese
\n     rules,  appointments  to  the  posts  of
\n     Inspector, shall  be made\tby the Deputy
\n     Inspector-General concerned  and to  the
\n     ranks of  Sub-Inspector, Assistant\t Sub-
\n     Inspector, Head  Security Guard,  Senior
\n     Security  Guard,\tSecurity  Guard\t  and
\n     Followers\t shall\t be   made   by\t  the
\n     Commandant.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Obviously, the  first point  has  to  be  decided\twith
\nreference to  Section 5\t of the\t Act and  Rule 11  as quoted
\nabove. Section\t5 prescribes for appointment of the enrolled
\nmembers of the Force by Director General, who shall exercise
\nthat power  in accordance with the rules made under the Act.
\nThe manner  of exercise of power of appointment conferred on
\nthe Director  General is  regulated by\tthe aforesaid  Rules
\nframed under Section 22 of the Act. The proviso to Section 5
\npermits the  Central Government\t by order to specify in this
\nbehalf such  other supervisory office as may be specified to
\nexercise the  power of\tappointment under  the\tSection.  In
\nother words,  Section 5\t confers the power of appointment of
\nthe enrolled  members of  the Force  on the Director General
\nand permits  the Central Government by an order made in this
\nbehalf to  specify any\tother supervisory  officer  also  to
\nexercise that  power of\t appointment of the enrolled members
\nof the\tForce. Thus there can be no doubt that if tho deputy
\nInspector-General of  the Force\t was  so  empowered  by\t the
\nCentral Government in accordance with the proviso to Section
\n5 then he was the competent authority to appoint a Inspector
\nor Sub-Inspector  of  the  Force  and,\ttherefore,  was\t the
\ncompetent authority to accept his resignation. The fact that
\nthe respondent\twas an\tenrolled member of the Force and the
\nD.I.G. of  the Force  is supervisory  officer, is clear from
\nrule 3-A and is not disputed.\n<\/p>\n
     Rule  11\tquoted\tabove  relates\tto  the\t `powers  of
\nappointment’ in\t Chapter IV  relating to the `recruitment to
\nthe Force’.  Rule 11  clearly empowers the Deputy Inspector-
\nGeneral to  make appointments  to the  post of\tInspector by
\nvirtue of  which the  Deputy Inspector-General was competent
\nto make\t the appointment  of the  respondent end, therefore,
\nwas also  competent to\taccept his  resignation. The opening
\nwords of  Rule 11  merely say that this power is “subject to
\nthe provisions\tof the Act and these rules” so that if there
\nbe an  contrary provision  in the  Act and these Rules, that
\nhas  to\t  be  taken   note  of.\t There\tis  no\tcontrary  or
\ninconsistent provision\tin the\tAct, wherein  the proviso in
\nSection 5  clearly permits the conferment of this power on a
\nsupervisory officer  and there\tis no inconsistent provision
\nin  the\t  Rules.  Ordinarily   this  discussion\t  should  be
\nsufficient to dispose of this point. However, the High Court
\nhas taken  a different\tview and, therefore, a consideration
\nof the\treason given  by the High Court for a different view
\nrequires consideration.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court has referred to certain propositions of
\nlaw to\twhich no  exception  can  be  taken  but  the  error
\ncommitted is  in application  of those principles. According
\nto the\tHigh  Court,  the  proviso  to\tSection\t 5  requires
\nconferment of  this power  on a\t supervisory officer  by  an
\norder made  by the  Central Government and Rule 11 framed in
\nexercise of  its power\tunder Section 22 of the Act does not
\nsatisfy this requirement.\n<\/p>\n
     In our  opinion, there  is a  clear fallacy in the view
\ntaken by  the High Court. The status of a rule framed by the
\nCentral Government  in exercise\t of the\t power conferred  by
\nSection 22  of the Act for carrying out purposes of the Act,
\nwhich in  particular and without prejudice to the generality
\nof that power enables to provide by rules for regulating the
\nconditions of  service of  members of the Force, cannot have
\nlesser efficacy\t in law\t or be treated as not satisfying the
\nrequirement  of\t  an  order   of  the\tCentral\t  Government
\ncontemplated by the proviso in Section 5. The fallacy in the
\nview taken by the High Court is that it has assumed that the
\nmode described\tby the proviso in Section 5 of conferment of
\nthis  power   on  a   supervisory  officer  by\tthe  Central
\nGovernment is not satisfied by Rule 11 framed in exercise of
\nthe rule  making  power\t of  the  Central  Government  under
\nSection 22  of the  Act or  that a mere executive order sans
\nthe power  conferred on the Central Government by Section 22
\nof the Act is a different and the only manner of exercise of
\nthis power  given by the proviso in Section 5 of the Act. It
\nis this fallacy which has led to an erroneous application of
\nthe principles\tmentioned in  the impugned  judgment to\t the
\nfacts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
     We have no doubt that Rule 11 of the Central Industrial
\nSecurity Force\tRules, 1969 framed by the Central Government
\nin exercise  of the  rule  making  power  conferred  on\t the
\nCentral Government  by Section 22 of the Act fully satisfies
\nthe requirement\t of the proviso in Section 5 of the Act; the
\nD.I.G. of  the\tForce  was  duly  empowered  in\t the  manner
\nprescribed by  law to  exercise the  power of appointment of
\nInspector in  the Force;  and, therefore,  the D.I.G. of the
\nForce was  competent to\t accept the resignation submitted by
\nthe  respondent.  Accordingly,\tacceptance  of\trespondent’s
\nresignation by\tthe D.i.g.  on 17\/10\/1984  was valid  and it
\ncould not  be withdrawn\t by the\t respondent subsequently  on
\n4\/12\/1984. The\tattempt made  by the  respondent to withdraw
\nhis resignation\t after it  has been  duly  accepted  by\t the
\nD.I.G.,\t was   ineffective.  The  first\t contention  of\t the
\nrespondent was,\t therefore, erroneously accepted by the High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
     The other contention of the respondent was also wrongly
\naccepted  by   the  High  Court.  Rule\t58  of\tthe  Central
\nIndustrial Security Force Rules, 1969 is as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     “58. Re-enlistment.-  A  member  of  the
\n     Force who\thas been  dismissed therefrom
\n     shall not\tbe  re-enlisted.  However,  a
\n     member of the Force who has resigned may
\n     be re-enlisted  with the sanction of the
\n     Deputy Inspector-General.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The respondent having resigned as a member of the Force
\nmay have  been re-enlisted  with the  sanction of the Deputy
\nInspector General.  The contention  of the  respondent which
\nfound acceptance  by the  High Court  is that the refusal of
\nthe sanction  for re-enlistment by the D.I.G. was arbitrary.
\nObviously,  the\t  reason  assigned  to\tsupport\t refusal  of
\nsanction for  reinstatement was\t that the  service record of
\nthe respondent was not satisfactory. It was also pointed out
\nthat this prayer of the respondent had been considered twice
\nearlier and  rejected after which the respondent had not put
\nforth any  fresh ground\t requiring a  change of the opinion.
\nThe High  Court perused\t the relevant files and has referred
\nto the notes therein. According to a note made by the D.I.G.
\non 24\/6\/1985  the respondent  had made some false statements
\nin his\tapplication. All  this is  mentioned in the impugned
\njudgment itself.  Assuming this\t course was  permissible, in
\nview of the earlier unsatisfactory conduct of the respondent
\nbeing a\t ground for  rejection\tof  the\t same  prayer  twice
\nearlier and  there being  no  fresh  ground  put  forth\t for
\nreconsideration, this  note of\tthe D.I.G. on 24\/6\/1985 also
\ncontained a relevant fact to justify refusal of the sanction
\nfor re-enlistment.  However, the  High Court, in our opinion
\nerroneously, was  not  satisfied  and  it  embarked  upon  a
\nfurther inquiry\t into the  correctness\tof  those  notes  by
\nenquiring into\tthe fallacies  of the statements made by the
\nrespondent. The\t High Court  has then  said that  it is\t not
\nsatisfied about the due application of mind by the D.I.G. in
\nrejecting a  prayer for\t re-enlistment. It has, accordingly,
\ncome to\t the conclusion\t that the exercise of the discretion
\nby the\tD.I.G. is  arbitrary. In our opinion, the view taken
\nby the High Court is not justified.\n<\/p>\n
     The  only\t judicial  scrutiny  required  for  deciding
\nwhether refusal\t of the\t sanction for  re-enlistment of\t the
\nrespondent as  a member\t of the\t Force was arbitrary, was to
\nsee whether the record disclosed existence of relevant facts
\nto support  the\t rejection  of\tsanction.  The\tabove  facts
\ndisclosed from the record which the High Court examined, are
\nundoubtedly relevant  factors  to  support  refusal  of\t the
\nsanction by  the D.I.G..  None of  these  factors  could  be
\ncalled extraneous  or nonexistent.  Moreover, the prayer for
\nre-enlistment was a reiteration of the same prayer which had
\nbeen rejected  twice earlier without putting forth any fresh
\nground to  justify the\treconsideration. It  is difficult to
\nappreciate how\tthe exercise of the discretion by the D.I.G.
\nunder Rule  58 could be termed as arbitrary, on these facts.
\nThe Other  contention of the respondent is equally devoid of
\nany merit.  There was thus no ground on which the respondent
\ncould be granted any relief in his writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  aforesaid reasons,  the appeal is allowed. The
\nimpugned judgment  of the  High Court is set aside resulting
\nin the\tdismissal of the respondent’s writ petition filed in
\nthe High Court. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India & Ors vs Binod Bihari Behera on 14 November, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC, Supl. (4) 728 JT 1995 (8) 223 Author: J S Verma Bench: Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: BINOD BIHARI BEHERA DATE OF JUDGMENT14\/11\/1995 BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-100455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India & Ors vs Binod Bihari Behera on 14 November, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India & Ors vs Binod Bihari Behera on 14 November, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1995-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-29T10:51:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Binod Bihari Behera on 14 November, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-29T10:51:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995\"},\"wordCount\":2010,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995\",\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Binod Bihari Behera on 14 November, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-29T10:51:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Binod Bihari Behera on 14 November, 1995\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India & Ors vs Binod Bihari Behera on 14 November, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India & Ors vs Binod Bihari Behera on 14 November, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-29T10:51:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India & Ors vs Binod Bihari Behera on 14 November, 1995","datePublished":"1995-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-29T10:51:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995"},"wordCount":2010,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995","name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Binod Bihari Behera on 14 November, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-29T10:51:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-binod-bihari-behera-on-14-november-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Binod Bihari Behera on 14 November, 1995"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100455","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=100455"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100455\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=100455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=100455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=100455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}