{"id":101633,"date":"2010-06-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-13T16:59:53","modified_gmt":"2018-09-13T11:29:53","slug":"shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shri Sagar Sadashiv Kasture vs Central Bank Of India on 15 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Sagar Sadashiv Kasture vs Central Bank Of India on 15 June, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: P. B. Majmudar, R. M. Savant<\/div>\n
                                                1\n\n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      \n                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                          WRIT PETITION NO.2421 of 1994\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n    Shri Sagar Sadashiv Kasture, \n    Officer Scale since removed, \n    Central Bank of India, \n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n    Aranxeshwar Branch, Pune.                                         ..... Petitioner\n\n              V\/s.\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n    1.   Central Bank of India, \n         through its Chairman and\n                              \n         Managing Director, having its\n         Central Office at Chandemukhi, \n         Nariman Point, Bombay - 400 021. \n                             \n    2.   Regional Manager\/Disciplinary\n         Authority, Central Bank of India, \n         Regional Office, Pune, Ravivar Peth,\n         Pune - 2. \n       \n\n\n    3.   Zonal Manager\/Appellate Authority, \n    \n\n\n\n         Central Bank of India, Zonal Office,\n         Pune - 317, Mahatma Gandhi Road, \n         Pune - 1.                                              ..... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n    Mr.H.S.Venegavkar, for the petitioner. \n    Mr.S.K.Talsania,   Senior   Advocate   i\/by   M\/s.Sanjay   Udeshi   &   Co.,   for \n    respondent Nos.1 to 3. \n\n                           CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR &\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   R.M.SAVANT, JJ.  \n<\/pre>\n
                           DATE :      15th June, 2010 <\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.) : –\n<\/p>\n
    1.               By   way   of   this   petition   filed   under   Article   226   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
    Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the <\/p>\n
    Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Bank dated 28-08-1993, by which <\/p>\n
    the   petitioner   is   subjected   to   penalty   of   removal   from   the   services.\n<\/p>\n
    However, the said order is not to be treated as disqualification for future <\/p>\n
    employment.     The order of the Disciplinary Authority was confirmed by <\/p>\n
    the   Appellate   Authority   of   the   respondent   Bank   by   an   order   dated <\/p>\n
    01-12-1993.\n<\/p>\n
    2.<\/p>\n
                     The   petitioner   was   initially   appointed   as   a   Clerk   in   the <\/p>\n
    respondent Bank on 05-03-1973 and was working at the relevant time, at <\/p>\n
    Vadgaon Anand Branch of the Bank upto 21-09-1977.   The petitioner was <\/p>\n
    subsequently promoted as an Officer (Grade I) in February 1981.     The <\/p>\n
    petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in December 1991.   It <\/p>\n
    was alleged that the petitioner while working as Clerk at the said Branch <\/p>\n
    during   the   period   between   05-03-1973   to   21-09-1981,   committed <\/p>\n
    misconduct   by   misusing   his   position   as   an   employee   of   the   Bank   by <\/p>\n
    deriving   pecuniary   benefits   for   himself   through   the   loan   of   Rs.6,500\/-\n<\/p>\n
    which was sanctioned and disbursed on 31-07-1976 in the name of one <\/p>\n
    Manaji Baban Kokane.     It is the case of the respondent No.1. that one <\/p>\n
    Mr.Kokane,   resident   of   Ale,   Tal.   Junnar,   Dist.   Pune,   had   submitted   an <\/p>\n
    application on 03-07-1976 for availing a loan of Rs.7,000\/-.   A loan of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    6,500\/- was accordingly sanctioned to him and disbursed on 31-07-1976 <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
    and the pecuniary benefit of the same was enjoyed by the petitioner, as is <\/p>\n
    evident from the credits made in the said loan account.  Accordingly, it is <\/p>\n
    alleged   that   the   petitioner   misused   his   position   as   an   employee   of   the <\/p>\n
    respondent   Bank   by   deriving   pecuniary   benefit   out   of   the   said   loan <\/p>\n
    transaction.\n<\/p>\n
    3.                The   petitioner   denied   the   charges   levelled   against   him.\n<\/p>\n
    The Disciplinary Authority appointed an Inquiry Officer for conduct of the <\/p>\n
    inquiry against the petitioner.   The Inquiry Officer recorded the evidence <\/p>\n
    of the petitioner and the other witnesses and submitted his findings, which <\/p>\n
    are  at   Page   25   (Annexure   B)   of   the  paper  book.      The  Inquiry   Officer <\/p>\n
    observed   that   after   going   through   the   proceedings   of   the   departmental <\/p>\n
    inquiry and considering the documentary evidence on record, he came to <\/p>\n
    the conclusion that the petitioner had taken Rs.6,000\/- from Mr.Kokane, <\/p>\n
    the borrower.     After considering the documentary and oral evidence on <\/p>\n
    record, the Inquiry Officer came to the following conclusions : –\n<\/p>\n
                (1) That Shri S.S.Kasture had taken Rs.6,000\/- from Shri
\n                M.B.Kokane the borrower, probably when he withdrew the
\n                amount of        Rs.6,200\/-,   Rs.6,000\/-for   a   marriage   in <\/p>\n
                C.S.O.E.’s house (P.O.Ex.67).             There is no documentary
\n                evidence that Shri Kasture had taken a loan of Rs.6,500\/-
\n                sanctioned to Mr.Kokane by the then Branch Manager  Shri
\n                S.P.Kataria   (In   fact,   he   claimed   to   have   sanctioned   Rs.
\n                6,000\/- only as a loan).  D.R.Ex.11 of 21-01-1993.   In such
\n                a case then why  Mr.U.N.Kamble, the then cashier paid Rs.
\n                6,500\/- against Rs.6,000\/- sanctioned is yet intriguing.  <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
     2. It is true that Shri Kasture had taken Rs.6,000\/- when <\/p>\n
     he was a  Clerk,   from   the   Bank’s   borrower,   which   is   not
\n     permitted   under   our   staff   conduct   rules,   leave   aside
\n     attracting provision under Officers service rules.\n<\/p>\n
     3. In   his   own   confession   on   page   No.120   of   the
\n     proceedings dated  22.1.1993 he has admitted that he used
\n     to purchase clothes from         Mr.Kokane,   because   of   the <\/p>\n
     good relations. Mr.Kokane had with all the  staff   of   the
\n     Branch at that time.  He has also admitted that shri Kasture
\n     will   refund\/repay   by   Rs.100\/-   monthly   instalment,   which
\n     he  deposited   in   his   (Mr.Kokane’s)   loan   account.   This <\/p>\n
     amount totals  comes of Rs.5,750\/-\n<\/p>\n
     4. If we look for the statements of Mr.Kokane made on
\n     various dates, it is seen that he had prayed for a simple rate <\/p>\n
     of interest to his retail trade loan account and even went to
\n     the extent of asking for  permission upto 50% to 60% (P.O.
\n     Exh.68   dated   16.8.1991).     It  is   incredible  to   believe   that
\n     such borrower will deposit in cash a sum of  Rs.29,643\/- on
\n     29.10.1991 (D.R.Ex.10) and immediately request for  a <\/p>\n
     non-due certificate  (D.R.Ex.2) of  29.10.1991.     Here it is
\n     noteworthy   to   examine   (D.R.Exh.1)   dated   23.1.1985   in <\/p>\n
     which he had  stated   that   he   had   incurred   losses   in   the
\n     business and the debit  balance   then   appearing   (i.e.   Rs.
\n     14,237.50) was difficult to be paid by  Shri Kokane.\n<\/p>\n
     5. It is also pertinent to note that nowhere the D.R. Or
\n     C.S.O.E.  have   refused   that   no   pecuniary   benefit   was
\n     derived from  Mr.K.B.Kokane.     The   only   difference   in
\n     version between Mr.Kokane  and   the   C.S.O.E.   Is   that <\/p>\n
     Mr.Kokane says that Rs.6,000\/- was paid in  cash   while   the
\n     C.S.O.E.   Denies   so,   but   agrees   that   he   purchased   some
\n     cloth\/clothes from him fro which a repayment of Rs.100\/-
\n     p.m., was assured.\n<\/p>\n
     6. It may therefore be a point for arriving at a conclusion
\n     that the  C.S.O.E.,   master   minded   to   receive   the   benefit
\n     may be in kind or cash  for   which   he   had   to   pay   loan <\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
             accounts through the withdrawals on  the   same   day   and <\/p>\n
             through the M.F. System when he worked at Satara Branch,
\n             indicating   subscription   for   cultural   club,   but   actually
\n             deducting   the   instalments   for   both   at   Wadgaon-Anand <\/p>\n
             Branch as per  oral instructions.\n<\/p>\n
             7. It is also true that without necessary influence on the
\n             then Branch Manger Shri Kataria, whether Mr.Kasture was <\/p>\n
             then working as  a Clerk or an officer, it is immaterial for
\n             the sake of exercising the         required   influence   to   grant
\n             Rs.6,500\/- as loan to Mr.M.B.Kokane, out  of   which   he
\n             derived the benefit of Rs.6,000\/- from the  borrower.     In <\/p>\n
             fact, from the different versions of Mr.Kasture, Mr.Kokane
\n             was not at      all   in   need   of   the   loan   for   tailoring   or <\/p>\n
             Readymade cloth business, but            the   subsequent   events,
\n             the intimacy, reveals that the C.S.O.E., was in             need   of
\n             the money and Mr.Kokane posed as a borrower in need for <\/p>\n
             C.S.O.E., with a view to later pay the loan in installments.<\/p>\n
             8. The   M.R.’s   attempt   to   get   read   and   link   all   the
\n             documents 1 to        69   he   presented   through   all   his   4
\n             witnesses and trying to establish the  simultaneous <\/p>\n
             transactions   relationship   is   to   be   taken   into   account
\n             seriously, as withdrawals and deposits are of the same dates <\/p>\n
             which  obviously   creates   doubts   in   anybody’s   mind.
\n             These have not been        challenged   by   D.R.,   or   C.S.E.O.
\n             This therefore, proves beyond doubt  the   nexus   of   the
\n             transaction or the deal struck by the C.S.O.E., clandestinely <\/p>\n
             with the borrower and the wrong methods he adopted in
\n             repayment of the loan.\n<\/p>\n
             9. From the statement of account of the borrower, though
\n             his   signatures   have   been   obtained   and   manoevred   on <\/p>\n
             (D.R.Ex.8 and 10)  and withdrawal of Mr.Komane (D.R.Ex.
\n             5,6,7, 8) only on D.R.Exh.of  Rs.2,000\/- Mr.Kokane did sign
\n             the loan slip and D.R.Ex.10 of Rs. 29,643\/- of 2.10.1991.\n<\/p>\n
    4.             In the operative part of the report, the Inquiry Officer came <\/p>\n
    to the  conclusion that the petitioner has misused his  position to derive <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
    pecuniary benefit to the extent of Rs.6,000\/- from Bank’s borrower, which <\/p>\n
    is   prohibited   under   the   Service   Rules.       It   was   also   found   that   the <\/p>\n
    petitioner had deposited in all Rs.5,750\/- and Rs.29,643\/- for the loan of <\/p>\n
    Rs.6,000\/- taken on 31-07-1976 upto 29-10-1991.  It was also pointed out <\/p>\n
    that the Bank had not suffered any monetary loss in the said transaction.\n<\/p>\n
    It was also found that the charge regarding misuse of his position as an <\/p>\n
    employee   was   proved   as   also   the   charge   regarding   deriving   pecuniary <\/p>\n
    benefit.       The   Disciplinary   Authority   agreed   with   the   said   finding   and <\/p>\n
    passed   an   order   of   punishment   against   the   petitioner,   by   which   the <\/p>\n
    petitioner was removed from service, but the same was not to be treated <\/p>\n
    as disqualification for future employment.\n<\/p>\n
    5.                The petitioner against the said order, preferred an Appeal <\/p>\n
    before   the   Appellate   Authority.   The   same   was   also   dismissed   by   the <\/p>\n
    Appellate Authority vide order dated 01.12.1993.\n<\/p>\n
    6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned <\/p>\n
    counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that it is not a case in <\/p>\n
    which the Bank had suffered any financial loss.   It is also argued that in <\/p>\n
    any case, what is proved against the petitioner is that he had borrowed the <\/p>\n
    amount and had entered into loan transaction with a person who was the <\/p>\n
    borrower   of   the   Bank,   which   was   treated   as   a   misconduct.       Learned <\/p>\n
    counsel for the petitioner submitted that though transaction in question <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
    had taken place between 1973 to 1976, the disciplinary proceedings were <\/p>\n
    initiated after considerable period i.e. in the year 1991 and therefore, on <\/p>\n
    the said ground the inquiry proceedings are required to be quashed.  The <\/p>\n
    learned counsel further submitted that   penalty given to the petitioner is <\/p>\n
    disproportionate, as the bank has not suffered any monetary loss.\n<\/p>\n
    7.                Per   contra,   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the <\/p>\n
    respondent Bank submitted that the petitioner being an employee of the <\/p>\n
    respondent bank, had committed serious act of misconduct, which is in the <\/p>\n
    nature of financial irregularity.    Learned counsel for the respondent Bank <\/p>\n
    further   submitted   that   it   is   irrefutable   that   petitioner   took   a   pecuniary <\/p>\n
    benefit from the borrower of the bank and that the petitioner was paying <\/p>\n
    loan installments on behalf of the said borrower in the said loan account <\/p>\n
    by himself and he had stopped making such payments since 1991 when he <\/p>\n
    was   transferred   from   the   branch   where   the   said   account   was   being <\/p>\n
    operated.   Since the deposits were being made in the said account, the <\/p>\n
    respondent No.1 Bank addressed a letter to the account holder Mr.Kokane, <\/p>\n
    informing him about making necessary payment in his loan account.    At <\/p>\n
    the said time, Mr.Kokane, the borrower, informed the Bank that the actual <\/p>\n
    benefit of the loan was availed by the petitioner as the latter wanted a <\/p>\n
    loan of Rs.7,000\/- in view of the marriage in his family.     It was further <\/p>\n
    stated that the said loan was sanctioned when the regular Branch Manger <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
    was on leave.  The said statement is made on 06-08-1991, which is evident <\/p>\n
    from Exh.67 of the Disciplinary Inquiry proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
    8.                Learned counsel for the respondent Bank contended that in <\/p>\n
    the   year   1991   when   the   aforesaid   fact   came   to   the   knowledge   of   the <\/p>\n
    respondent   Bank,   inquiry   was   initiated   against   the   petitioner   and <\/p>\n
    therefore, question of initiating inquiry proceedings at a belated stage does <\/p>\n
    not arise.\n<\/p>\n
    9.<\/p>\n
                      We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel <\/p>\n
    for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent Bank and <\/p>\n
    have   also   gone   through   the   petition   as   well   as   order   passed   by   the <\/p>\n
    disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority.     So far as the <\/p>\n
    question about misconduct on the part of the petitioner is concerned, it is <\/p>\n
    required to be noted that the scope of judicial review in such types of cases <\/p>\n
    is very  limited, this  Court cannot re-appreciate  the  evidence  on  record.\n<\/p>\n
    This Court is not required to examine the evidence on record as if it is an <\/p>\n
    appellate   court   and   it   is   only   required   to   see   whether   there   was   some <\/p>\n
    evidence   available   on   record   for   reaching   the   conclusion,   which   the <\/p>\n
    Disciplinary Authority has reached and\/or that there is no evidence worth <\/p>\n
    the name. It is required to be noted that the petitioner was charged in <\/p>\n
    connection   with   the   misuse   of   his   position   as   an   employee   of   the <\/p>\n
    respondent Bank.  From the material on record of the Inquiry proceedings, <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
    it cannot be disputed that the petitioner had enjoyed the benefit of loan <\/p>\n
    account,  which  was   disbursed  in   the  name  of   Mr.Kokane  in  July  1976.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.Kokane had submitted an application on 03-07-1976 for a loan of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    7,000\/- and accordingly loan of Rs.6,500\/- was sanctioned and disbursed <\/p>\n
    to   him   on   31-07-1976.     The   credits   made   in   the   said   loan   account   is <\/p>\n
    through the petitioner, on which there is absolutely no dispute.    Various <\/p>\n
    credits   were   made   in   the   said   loan   account   from   time   to   time   by   the <\/p>\n
    petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    10.               The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is <\/p>\n
    that   since   he   had   bought   cloth   on   credit   from   the   said   Kokane,   he <\/p>\n
    deposited the amounts from time to time in the said loan account.    The <\/p>\n
    Inquiry Officer has considered this aspect.   The Inquiry Officer found that <\/p>\n
    the   petitioner   had   taken   a   loan   of   Rs.6,000\/-   from   Mr.Kokane,   the <\/p>\n
    borrower of the Bank, which fact according to the Inquiry Officer is proved <\/p>\n
    by Exh.67.   The conclusion in this regard is drawn by the Inquiry Officer <\/p>\n
    on   the   basis   of   voluminous   evidence   led   before   him.       A   detailed <\/p>\n
    conclusion has been arrived at by the Inquiry Officer in this behalf.     On <\/p>\n
    the basis of various conclusions drawn by the Inquiry Officer, a finding was <\/p>\n
    recorded that the petitioner had misused his position by taking advantage <\/p>\n
    of pecuniary benefit to the extent of Rs.6,000\/- from the bank’s borrower, <\/p>\n
    which is  prohibited under  the  Service  Rules  of  the  Bank.      It  was  also <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
    established   by   documentary   evidence   that   the   petitioner   had   made <\/p>\n
    deposits   in   the   said   loan   account   from   time   to   time.     The   Disciplinary <\/p>\n
    authority has agreed with the findings of the Inquiry officer and ultimately, <\/p>\n
    it   is   held   that   the   petitioner   had   derived   pecuniary   benefit   from   the <\/p>\n
    borrower of the bank, which is a misconduct under the Service Rules.\n<\/p>\n
    11.               After going through the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer, it <\/p>\n
    is clearly  established that the  petitioner had taken  pecuniary benefit of <\/p>\n
    amount of Rs.6,000\/- from the borrower of the bank and in fact, petitioner <\/p>\n
    himself tried to pay the loan amount from time to time till 1991.     But, <\/p>\n
    subsequently, he stopped making such payments.     Considering the said <\/p>\n
    aspect, we find great force in the submission of the learned counsel for the <\/p>\n
    respondent Bank that since it was not possible for the petitioner to directly <\/p>\n
    obtain loan from the Bank, the petitioner through Mr.Kokane, managed to <\/p>\n
    see that Mr.Kokane obtains loan in his name, but ultimately, the benefit of <\/p>\n
    loan account had gone to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    12.               Our   attention   has   been   invited   to   Regulation   15   of   the <\/p>\n
    Central   Bank   of   India   Officer   Employee’s   (Conduct)   Regulations,   1976, <\/p>\n
    which also includes the supporting staff of the Bank also.       It would be <\/p>\n
    expedient to reproduce Regulation 15, which reads as under : –\n<\/p>\n
                15.  No officer employee shall, in his individual capacity –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (i)   borrow or permit any member of his family to borrow <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                             11<\/span><\/p>\n
                    or otherwise place himself or a member of his family under <\/p>\n
                    a pecuniary obligation to a broker or a money lender or a
\n                    subordinate employee of the bank or any person,
\n                    association of persons, firms, company or institution, <\/p>\n
                    whether incorporated or not, having dealings with the
\n                    bank;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (ii) buy or sell stock, shares or securities of any description
\n                    without funds to meet the full cost in the case of a purchase <\/p>\n
                    of scrips or delivery in the case of a sale;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (iii) incur debts at a race meeting;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (iv) lend money in private capacity to a constituent of the
\n                    bank or have personal dealings with such constituent in the <\/p>\n
                    purchase or sale of bills of exchange, Government paper or
\n                    any other securities; and <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                    (v) guarantee in his private capacity the pecuniary
\n                    obligations of another person or agree to indemnity in such
\n                    capacity another person from loss except with the previous <\/p>\n
                    permission of the competent authority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                               Provided that an officer employee may, give to or
\n                    accept from a relative or personal friend a purely temporary
\n                    loan of a small amount free of interest, or operate a credit <\/p>\n
                    account with a bonafide tradesman or make an advance of
\n                    pay to his private employee :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              Provided further that an officer employee may
\n                    obtain a loan from a co-operative society of which he is a
\n                    member or stand as a surety in respect of a loan taken by <\/p>\n
                    another member from a co-operative credit society of which
\n                    he is a member.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    13.             In   this   connection,   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner <\/p>\n
    contended that these Regulations have come into force in the year 1977 <\/p>\n
    and the loan transaction in question had taken place in the year 1976 and <\/p>\n
    therefore,   these   Regulations   could   not   be   made   applicable   to   the <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  12<\/span><\/p>\n
    petitioner.   Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the <\/p>\n
    said   Rules   can   only   be   made   applicable   to   the   Officers   and   it   is   not <\/p>\n
    applicable so far as Clerks are concerned, as the petitioner was serving as a <\/p>\n
    Clerk   at   the   relevant   time.       The   applicability   of   the   said   rules   was <\/p>\n
    challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.1461 of 1992 and <\/p>\n
    the Division Bench of this Court rejected the Writ Petition at the admission <\/p>\n
    stage itself, holding that difference in the procedure does not affect the <\/p>\n
    right   of   the   delinquent.       The   matter   was   thereafter,   carried   to   the <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court   by way of SLP No.9138 of 1992 and by an order dated <\/p>\n
    17-11-1992 the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP summarily.    This fact <\/p>\n
    has been stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent Bank and <\/p>\n
    as such, it is not disputed on behalf of the petitioner.  Therefore, in so far <\/p>\n
    as employees like the petitioner are concerned, the said Regulations are <\/p>\n
    applicable.\n<\/p>\n
    14.               So far as the applicability of the Regulations on account of <\/p>\n
    the  fact that the  loan  transaction was  took place in 1976, whereas the <\/p>\n
    Regulations came into force in 1977, it is required to be noted that the <\/p>\n
    petitioner has been charged for misconduct and the petitioner was paying <\/p>\n
    the amount on behalf of Mr.Kokane all throughout upto 1991.   It is in the <\/p>\n
    year 1991, when the payment was stopped, the respondent bank realized <\/p>\n
    this fact in view of the letter addressed by the borrower Mr.Kokane that <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  13<\/span><\/p>\n
    the actual beneficiary of the loan was the petitioner.   The learned counsel <\/p>\n
    for the respondent Bank submitted that it was in the nature of a recurring <\/p>\n
    wrong which came to the bank’s notice in the year 1991.     He further <\/p>\n
    submitted   that   under   the   previous   Service   Rules   also,   the   act   of   the <\/p>\n
    petitioner could be treated to be a misconduct. In our view, the petitioner <\/p>\n
    who had taken pecuniary benefit of an amount of Rs.6,000\/-, acted in the <\/p>\n
    manner which is not befitting a bank employee. In our view, it can be said <\/p>\n
    that the petitioner has failed in performing his duties with honesty and <\/p>\n
    integrity.   Even as per the statement of Mr.Kokane, who is a borrower of <\/p>\n
    the bank, who stated that he had not taken loan from the bank, but it was <\/p>\n
    only   for   the   benefit   of   the   petitioner   that   he   approached   the   bank   for <\/p>\n
    availing   the   loan,   as   the   petitioner   wanted   money   for   the   purpose   of <\/p>\n
    marriage in his family.     The said conduct of the petitioner squarely falls <\/p>\n
    under the misconduct, mentioned in Regulation 15(1).     Even assuming <\/p>\n
    that Rules of 1977 are not applicable to the petitioner, then also, the case <\/p>\n
    of the petitioner would squarely fall under the residuary clause of an act <\/p>\n
    “unbecoming of a bank employee”, which was even otherwise, treated as <\/p>\n
    misconduct prior to 1977.       In view of the above, the submission of the <\/p>\n
    learned counsel for the petitioner that the act of the petitioner did not <\/p>\n
    amount to any misconduct, is required to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    15.               So   far   as   delay   in   initiating   proceedings   against   the <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  14<\/span><\/p>\n
    petitioner is concerned, it is required to be noted that the deposits towards <\/p>\n
    repayment in the said loan account was stopped in the year 1991.   Since <\/p>\n
    no   payment   was   received   by   the   bank   towards   the   said   loan   account, <\/p>\n
    respondent   bank   gave   notice   to   the   original   borrower,     the   original <\/p>\n
    borrower ultimately addressed a communication to the respondent Bank <\/p>\n
    stating the factual aspects of the matter and that is how, the respondent <\/p>\n
    Bank came to know about the transaction which took place between the <\/p>\n
    petitioner and the borrower.  In such circumstances, it cannot be said that <\/p>\n
    the action of the bank suffers from delay or latches in any manner.  One <\/p>\n
    can   only   say   that   if   the   petitioner   had   continued   to   make   payment, <\/p>\n
    perhaps the misconduct could not have come to light.\n<\/p>\n
    16.               So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, in our <\/p>\n
    view, this Court cannot interfere with the same looking to the misconduct <\/p>\n
    proved   against   the   petitioner.       In   this   behalf,   learned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
    respondent Bank has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the <\/p>\n
    Case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Ors., V\/s. Munna Lal  <\/p>\n
    Jain, 2005 1 CLR 821.     In the said case, employee of a regional bank <\/p>\n
    withdrew an amount of Rs.25,000\/- for his personal use.     The amount <\/p>\n
    was withdrawn in view of his wife’s health having deteriorated and who <\/p>\n
    required surgical treatment.  While upholding the decision of the bank in <\/p>\n
    terminating the employee’s service, the Supreme Court has observed :\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  15<\/span><\/p>\n
                14. A bank officer is required to exercise higher stands of <\/p>\n
                honesty   and   integrity.     He   deals   with   money   of   the
\n                depositors  and the  customers.   Every officer\/employee  of
\n                the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the <\/p>\n
                interest of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost
\n                integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing
\n                which is unbecoming of a bank officer.   Good conduct and
\n                discipline   are   inseparable   from   the   functioning   of   every <\/p>\n
                officer\/employee   of   the   bank.       As   was   observed   by   this
\n                Court   in   Disciplinary   Authority-cum-Regional   Manager   V.
\n                Nikunja Bihari Patnaik,<\/a> 1996(73) FLR 1252 (SC), it is no
\n                defence   available   to   say   that   there   was   no   loss   or   profit <\/p>\n
                resulted in case, when the officer\/employee acted without
\n                authority.       The   very   discipline   of   an   organization   more <\/p>\n
                particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers
\n                and   officers   acting   and   operating   within   their   allotted
\n                sphere.   Acting beyond one’s authority is by itself a breach <\/p>\n
                of discipline and is a misconduct.   The charges against the
\n                employee   were   not   casual   in   nature   and   were   serious.
\n                These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by
\n                the High Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    17.               During   the   course   of   hearing,   learned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
    respondent   Bank   submitted   that   the   petitioner   was   subjected   to <\/p>\n
    disciplinary proceedings, whilst holding a higher post for different charges, <\/p>\n
    but since he was removed from the service, those proceedings have lapsed.\n<\/p>\n
    Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this <\/p>\n
    Court   would   not   like   to   interfere   with   the   punishment   awarded   to   the <\/p>\n
    petitioner by the Disciplinary authority.\n<\/p>\n
    18.               Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   submitted   that   at   the <\/p>\n
    time of removal of the petitioner, the amount which the petitioner was <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                           16<\/span><\/p>\n
    entitled to receive has been paid to him by directly crediting the same in <\/p>\n
    the loan account of the petitioner and nothing is now due and payable to <\/p>\n
    the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    19.             For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
          ( R.M.SAVANT, J. )                            ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n                           \n                          \n       \n    \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:00:44 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shri Sagar Sadashiv Kasture vs Central Bank Of India on 15 June, 2010 Bench: P. B. Majmudar, R. M. Savant 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2421 of 1994 Shri Sagar Sadashiv Kasture, Officer Scale since removed, Central Bank of India, Aranxeshwar Branch, Pune. […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-101633","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Sagar Sadashiv Kasture vs Central Bank Of India on 15 June, 2010 - 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\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Sagar Sadashiv Kasture vs Central Bank Of India on 15 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-06-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-13T11:29:53+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Sagar Sadashiv Kasture vs Central Bank Of India on 15 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-13T11:29:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3872,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Shri Sagar Sadashiv Kasture vs Central Bank Of India on 15 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-13T11:29:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Sagar Sadashiv Kasture vs Central Bank Of India on 15 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri Sagar Sadashiv Kasture vs Central Bank Of India on 15 June, 2010 - 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\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Sagar Sadashiv Kasture vs Central Bank Of India on 15 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-13T11:29:53+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Sagar Sadashiv Kasture vs Central Bank Of India on 15 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-13T11:29:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010"},"wordCount":3872,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010","name":"Shri Sagar Sadashiv Kasture vs Central Bank Of India on 15 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-13T11:29:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-sagar-sadashiv-kasture-vs-central-bank-of-india-on-15-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Sagar Sadashiv Kasture vs Central Bank Of India on 15 June, 2010"}]},{"@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\/101633","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=101633"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101633\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101633"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101633"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101633"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}