{"id":10208,"date":"2010-03-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010"},"modified":"2016-11-23T04:15:37","modified_gmt":"2016-11-22T22:45:37","slug":"rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Rajendra Singh Sisodia vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Rajendra Singh Sisodia vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 March, 2010<\/div>\n
                                            1\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n                              AT JODHPUR\n\n\n                                      :ORDER:\n\n\n\n             D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1350\/2009.\n             (Rajendra Singh Sisodia Vs. Union of India & Others)\n\n\n             DATE OF ORDER :                    March 22nd, 2010\n\n\n                                      PRESENT\n\n                        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KAPADIA\n\n                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS\n                  _________________________________________\n\n\n             Mr. Kamal Dave for the petitioner.\n             Mr. Varun Gupta for the respondent(s).\n\nReportable\n             BY THE COURT : (Per Hon'ble Mr. Vyas, J.)<\/pre>\n
                   In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and<\/p>\n
             227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is<\/p>\n
             challenging the judgment dated 28.11.2008 passed by<\/p>\n
             the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench,<\/p>\n
             Jodhpur in Original Application No.241\/07, whereby, the<\/p>\n
             learned Tribunal dismissed the original application filed<\/p>\n
             by   the    petitioner   and   further   directed   that   the<\/p>\n
             respondents shall finalize the departmental proceedings<\/p>\n
             within six months from the date of receipt of copy of the
\n                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
order as the incident mentioned in the charge-sheet<\/p>\n
related to the year 1995.      Applicant-petitioner was also<\/p>\n
directed to cooperate with the disciplinary proceedings<\/p>\n
fully.\n<\/p>\n
         As per brief facts of the case, the petitioner was<\/p>\n
charge-sheeted under Rule 14 of the Central Civil<\/p>\n
Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide charge memo dated<\/p>\n
16.08.2007.        In the charge-sheet, three articles of<\/p>\n
charges against the petitioner relating to the incident of<\/p>\n
year 1995, in respect of which a criminal case was also<\/p>\n
registered and the relied documents as appended as a<\/p>\n
list with the charge-sheet also are same as of the<\/p>\n
criminal case including the FIR.\n<\/p>\n
         The petitioner is an employee of the Income Tax<\/p>\n
Department       working    since    1995.       The    alleged<\/p>\n
misconduct for which charge-sheet was issued to the<\/p>\n
petitioner vide memorandum dated 16.08.2007 relates<\/p>\n
to criminal case also.      The C.B.I. Registered an FIR on<\/p>\n
26.04.1995 in which challan was filed and, subsequent<\/p>\n
to trial of the said criminal case, he was acquitted by<\/p>\n
the C.B.I. Court.          After acquittal, the respondent<\/p>\n
department sought explanation from the petitioner vide<\/p>\n
show-cause      notice     dated    04.02.2003   as    to   why<\/p>\n
disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against
\n                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
him.          The     petitioner    filed      his     explanation     vide<\/p>\n
communication dated 04.02.2003 and denied all the<\/p>\n
allegations in detail and being satisfied after considering<\/p>\n
the    explanation         submitted      by     the    petitioner,    the<\/p>\n
disciplinary authority concluded that this is not fit case<\/p>\n
for initiating disciplinary proceedings as the action being<\/p>\n
regular and bona fide having no mens rea.                       With the<\/p>\n
above      observation        it   was      recommended          by    the<\/p>\n
disciplinary authority that no disciplinary action is<\/p>\n
required against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        It is very strange that subsequent to the above<\/p>\n
decision      of    the    disciplinary       authority,    though     the<\/p>\n
petitioner was accorded promotion to the post of<\/p>\n
Income Tax Officer with effect from 24.10.2003, from<\/p>\n
the    date        persons    junior     to    the     petitioner     were<\/p>\n
promoted,            after    opening         the    sealed    cover     in<\/p>\n
furtherance of the recommendation of the DPC.                          But,<\/p>\n
after about 12 years of the alleged period of charges,<\/p>\n
again, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner.<\/p>\n
The     petitioner        raised   objection         vide   letter   dated<\/p>\n
10.09.2007 in detail but the respondents vide order<\/p>\n
dated    14.09.2007          rejected     the same          stating that<\/p>\n
acquittal from the criminal Court will not be a bar for<\/p>\n
initiation of the departmental proceedings and delay
\n                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
was not totally attributable to the department.<\/p>\n
      The petitioner filed original application before the<\/p>\n
Central Administrative Tribunal, in which, he challenged<\/p>\n
the   order   dated   14.09.2007     whereby   he   raised<\/p>\n
objection with regard to issuance of fresh charge-sheet<\/p>\n
against him for the charges upon which criminal case<\/p>\n
was registered and petitioner was acquitted; and,<\/p>\n
thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued show-cause<\/p>\n
notice to him against which he filed his explanation and<\/p>\n
that explanation was accepted by the disciplinary<\/p>\n
authority with due satisfaction found that it is not fit<\/p>\n
case for initiating any departmental proceedings; but,<\/p>\n
as per the respondents, in the reply submitted before<\/p>\n
the Tribunal there was difference of opinion in between<\/p>\n
the C.B.I. and Commissioner, therefore, the matter was<\/p>\n
referred to the Central Vigilance Committee (C.V.C.)<\/p>\n
culminating into the charge-sheet.\n<\/p>\n
      As per respondents, upon the advice of the C.V.C.<\/p>\n
The charge-sheet was issued even after 12 years of the<\/p>\n
alleged misconduct and delay in issuance of the charge-<\/p>\n
sheet does not create any legal right in favour of the<\/p>\n
delinquent.    Upon objection raised by the petitioner<\/p>\n
with regard to issuance of fresh charge-sheet by way of<\/p>\n
filing representation, the respondents rejected the
\n                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
representation filed by the petitioner vide order dated<\/p>\n
14.09.2007,     on the ground that the acquittal from the<\/p>\n
criminal Court will not be a bar for initiation of<\/p>\n
departmental proceedings and the delay is not totally<\/p>\n
attributable to the department.\n<\/p>\n
      The petitioner’s original application was dismissed<\/p>\n
by   the    learned      Tribunal   vide   judgment   dated<\/p>\n
23.11.2008 and further ordered         that the respondents<\/p>\n
shall finalize the departmental proceedings within six<\/p>\n
months from the date of receipt of copy of the<\/p>\n
judgment\/order.       The said judgment is under challenge<\/p>\n
in this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
      Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
for assailing the validity of the said judgment is that the<\/p>\n
finding of the learned Tribunal is totally erroneous and<\/p>\n
contrary to basic principles of law.        Admittedly, the<\/p>\n
charge-sheet issued on 16.08.2007 relates to the<\/p>\n
Articles of charge of year 1995 and for the same<\/p>\n
charges a criminal case was also registered against the<\/p>\n
petitioner, in which, he faced the trial and, ultimately,<\/p>\n
he was acquitted         by   the criminal Court.      The<\/p>\n
respondent Department also served show-cause notice<\/p>\n
asking for the petitioner’s explanation why disciplinary<\/p>\n
action should not be initiated against him; but, upon
\n                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
filing the explanation by the petitioner it was concluded<\/p>\n
by the Disciplinary Authority that no case is made out<\/p>\n
for   initiation   of     disciplinary    inquiry   against     the<\/p>\n
petitioner.    The said decision taken by the disciplinary<\/p>\n
authority was accepted and petitioner was accorded<\/p>\n
promotion as Income Tax Officer in the year 2003.<\/p>\n
Therefore, after according promotion, nothing remains<\/p>\n
to be adverse against the applicant in respect of the<\/p>\n
period prior to the date of promotion.\n<\/p>\n
      It is obvious that if an employee is exonerated in<\/p>\n
criminal case for the same charges, for which, show-<\/p>\n
cause notice is issued and, after filing reply to the show-<\/p>\n
cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority comes to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that no case is made out, then, there is no<\/p>\n
occasion left for any of the authorities to take further<\/p>\n
action as appellate authority of the decision taken by<\/p>\n
the   Disciplinary      Authority.         The    power   to   take<\/p>\n
disciplinary action is left with the Disciplinary Authority<\/p>\n
only and none else and once the Disciplinary Authority<\/p>\n
has opined that no case is made out for initiation of<\/p>\n
inquiry,   then,     any    further      action   taken   by    the<\/p>\n
respondents can be defined as illegal action because as<\/p>\n
per Rule 14(2), the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority<\/p>\n
is final and shall prevail and no other authority can
\n                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
exercise the power to revise the decision of Disciplinary<\/p>\n
Authority.       Here,   in   this   case,   admittedly,   the<\/p>\n
Disciplinary Authority found after giving due notice to<\/p>\n
the petitioner and taking explanation from him that no<\/p>\n
case is made out to proceed against him, then, in that<\/p>\n
event, the charge-sheet issued to him on the basis of<\/p>\n
recommendation of the CVC deserves to be quashed;<\/p>\n
but, the learned Tribunal has committed a gross<\/p>\n
illegality while not accepting the above fact for the<\/p>\n
purpose of adjudicating the original application filed by<\/p>\n
the petitioner against the charge-sheet.<\/p>\n
      Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the<\/p>\n
question of delay in departmental inquiry concluded that<\/p>\n
prolonged disciplinary inquiry against a government<\/p>\n
employee should be avoided in the interest of inspiring<\/p>\n
confidence in the minds of government employees.            In<\/p>\n
the present case, the competent disciplinary authority<\/p>\n
already satisfied with the reply to the show-cause notice<\/p>\n
with regard to initiation of disciplinary inquiry, then,<\/p>\n
further action taken as per recommendation of CVC is<\/p>\n
per se illegal and no other authority other than the<\/p>\n
disciplinary authority can be given the power to take<\/p>\n
decision for initiation of the inquiry.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
\n                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
three judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court were<\/p>\n
brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal but the<\/p>\n
learned Tribunal ignoring all the judgments has illegally<\/p>\n
accepted the reply of the respondents that the action<\/p>\n
taken against the petitioner as per advice of the Central<\/p>\n
Vigilance Commission the respondent department has<\/p>\n
rightly proceeded with the departmental proceedings<\/p>\n
against the applicant.   Further, it is submitted that at<\/p>\n
the time of adjudication the learned Tribunal has only<\/p>\n
observed that counsel for the applicant has relied upon<\/p>\n
the judgments of the Supreme Court; but, at the time<\/p>\n
of adjudication, none of the judgments cited by counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioner were considered and discussed,<\/p>\n
therefore, it appears that the Tribunal has totally<\/p>\n
ignored the adjudication made by the apex Court.      In<\/p>\n
this view of the matter, the judgment impugned<\/p>\n
deserves to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
      We have considered the rival submissions made<\/p>\n
on behalf of both the parties.\n<\/p>\n
      In this case, admittedly for the same charges, for<\/p>\n
which, charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA)<\/p>\n
Rules, 1965 was issued vide memo dated 16.08.2007, a<\/p>\n
criminal case was registered in the C.B.I. and, after<\/p>\n
investigation, challan was filed in the Court of Special
\n                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
Judge, C.B.I. Cases where the petitioner faced the trial;<\/p>\n
but, ultimately, vide judgment dated 29.11.2002, after<\/p>\n
seven years, learned trial Court acquitted the petitioner<\/p>\n
and it was observed in the judgment that charge<\/p>\n
against the petitioner was not of criminal nature but the<\/p>\n
same being in the nature of departmental irregularities.<\/p>\n
      After passing of the said judgment admittedly a<\/p>\n
show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the<\/p>\n
Disciplinary   Authority.        The   petitioner   filed   his<\/p>\n
explanation before the Disciplinary Authority and, after<\/p>\n
due satisfaction, the Disciplinary Authority dropped the<\/p>\n
inquiry and gave finding that this does not appear to be<\/p>\n
a fit case for initiating disciplinary proceedings as the<\/p>\n
action being regular and bona fide having no element of<\/p>\n
mens rea.      But, contrary to the decision taken by the<\/p>\n
Disciplinary Authority while knowing the fact that<\/p>\n
petitioner has been provided promotion as Income Tax<\/p>\n
Officer the impugned charge-sheet was issued on the<\/p>\n
ground that in the case of non-gazetted employee it is<\/p>\n
provided that wherever there is difference of opinion<\/p>\n
between the C.B.I. and competent authority the matter<\/p>\n
was to be referred to the CVC and, accordingly, the<\/p>\n
case of the petitioner was referred to the CVC for its<\/p>\n
advice and, as per the advice of the CVC, charge-sheet
\n                                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
dated 16.08.2007 was issued.\n<\/p>\n
      In     our   opinion,     the   learned    Tribunal   has<\/p>\n
committed a serious error of law while ignoring the fact<\/p>\n
that power of decision as to initiating the inquiry or not<\/p>\n
to initiate the inquiry, vests in the Disciplinary Authority<\/p>\n
and only the Disciplinary Authority is competent under<\/p>\n
Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965; and, once the<\/p>\n
Disciplinary Authority has exercised the power while<\/p>\n
giving show-cause notice to the petitioner and took<\/p>\n
decision not to proceed for inquiry after considering the<\/p>\n
explanation given by the petitioner, then, it is not open<\/p>\n
to any of the authorities to take contrary decision.        The<\/p>\n
rule of law must prevail and opinion given by any other<\/p>\n
authority cannot be taken into consideration to surpass<\/p>\n
the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority as<\/p>\n
provided in the statute.\n<\/p>\n
      Hon’ble apex Court, in the case of Nagaraj<\/p>\n
Shivarao     Karjagi   Vs     Syndicate   Bank   Head   Office,<\/p>\n
Manipal and Another, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1507, in<\/p>\n
para 19, held as follows :\n<\/p>\n
           “The corresponding new bank referred to
\n           in S..8 has been defined under S.2(f) of
\n           the Act to mean a banking company
\n           specified in column 1 of the First
\n           Schedule of the Act and includes the
\n           Syndicate Bank.    Section 8 empowers
\n           the Government to issue directions in
\n                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
        regard to matters of policy but there
\n        cannot be any uniform policy with regard
\n        to different disciplinary matters and
\n        much less there could be any policy in
\n        awarding punishment to the delinquent
\n        officers in different cases.           The
\n        punishment to be imposed whether
\n        minor or major depends upon the nature
\n        of every case and the gravity of the
\n        misconduct proved.         The authorities
\n        have to exercise their judicial discretion
\n        having     regard   to   the   facts   and
\n        circumstances of each case.          They
\n        cannot act under the dictation of the
\n        Central Vigilance Commission or of the
\n        Central Government.        No thirds party
\n        like the Central Vigilance Commission or
\n        the Central Government could dictate the
\n        disciplinary authority or the appellate
\n        authority as to how they should exercise
\n        their power and what punishment they
\n        should impose on the delinquent officer.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (See: De Smith’s Judicial Review of
\n        Administrative    Act,    Fourth   Edition,
\n        p.309). The impugned directive of the
\n        Ministry of Finance is, therefore, wholly
\n        without jurisdiction and plainly contrary
\n        to the statutory Regulations governing
\n        disciplinary matters.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Now a days, it is seen that in government<\/p>\n
departments, in very casual manner, the authorities<\/p>\n
other than the Disciplinary Authority usurp the power of<\/p>\n
the Disciplinary Authority and imposing their decision<\/p>\n
upon the competent authority which is not permissible<\/p>\n
under the law.     This case is clear example of that<\/p>\n
situation    The petitioner was subjected to trial and<\/p>\n
upon charge-sheet filed by the C.B.I., after trial, the<\/p>\n
Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases acquitted the petitioner;
\n                                     12<\/span><\/p>\n
and, thereafter,          the Disciplinary Authority after due<\/p>\n
application of mind gave opinion that it is not a fit case<\/p>\n
in which departmental proceedings should be initiated<\/p>\n
and after accepting the opinion of the Disciplinary<\/p>\n
Authority    by     the    Department,        the      petitioner   was<\/p>\n
accorded promotion.           Inspite of the above fact, on the<\/p>\n
basis of the advice of the CVC, again, charge-sheet was<\/p>\n
issued to the petitioner, that too, after 12 years.                  In<\/p>\n
our opinion, due to unnecessary interference not only<\/p>\n
unnecessary litigation has been created but public<\/p>\n
money is also mis utilized.\n<\/p>\n
      We are also required to say something with<\/p>\n
regard to adjudication made by the Tribunal                     In our<\/p>\n
opinion, the learned Tribunal although reproduced the<\/p>\n
extracts of the judgments cited by counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner   but,     has     not        chosen   to    consider    the<\/p>\n
adjudication made by the Supreme Court in those<\/p>\n
judgments.        Even it is not taken into consideration for<\/p>\n
adjudicating the controversy involved in the matter.<\/p>\n
      In this view of the matter, we deprecate the<\/p>\n
practice of the Central Administrative Tribunal ignoring<\/p>\n
the proposition of law laid down by the apex Court while<\/p>\n
observing in one line that the judgments relied upon by<\/p>\n
the counsel for the petitioner are of no help which is not
\n                               13<\/span><\/p>\n
proper.    The learned Tribunal has proceeded upon the<\/p>\n
presumption that the power for taking disciplinary<\/p>\n
action lies with the Central Vigilance Commission only;<\/p>\n
but, in fact, this assumption is unfounded because the<\/p>\n
legislature has enacted rules and for taking disciplinary<\/p>\n
action and as per principle of law only the Disciplinary<\/p>\n
Authority is competent to take decision and none else.<\/p>\n
      In this view of the matter, while following law laid<\/p>\n
down in the case of Nagraj Shivarao Karjagi (supra) this<\/p>\n
writ petition is allowed.      Impugned judgment dated<\/p>\n
28.11.2008      passed   by   the   Central   Administrative<\/p>\n
Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur and, so also, charge-<\/p>\n
sheet Annex.-3 dated 16.08.2007 impugned in the<\/p>\n
Original Application No.241\/07 are hereby quashed and<\/p>\n
set aside.      A copy of this order may be sent to the<\/p>\n
Central      Administrative   Tribunal,   Jodhpur    Bench,<\/p>\n
Jodhpur.\n<\/p>\n
(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.               (A.M. Kapadia) J.<\/p>\n
Ojha, a.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Rajendra Singh Sisodia vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 March, 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1350\/2009. (Rajendra Singh Sisodia Vs. Union of India & Others) DATE OF ORDER : March 22nd, 2010 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10208","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nRajendra Singh Sisodia vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 March, 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\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajendra Singh Sisodia vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-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=\"2010-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-22T22:45:37+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajendra Singh Sisodia vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-22T22:45:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2450,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Rajendra Singh Sisodia vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-22T22:45:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajendra Singh Sisodia vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 March, 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":"Rajendra Singh Sisodia vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 March, 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\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajendra Singh Sisodia vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-22T22:45:37+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajendra Singh Sisodia vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-22T22:45:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010"},"wordCount":2450,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010","name":"Rajendra Singh Sisodia vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-22T22:45:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-sisodia-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-22-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajendra Singh Sisodia vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 March, 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\/10208","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=10208"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10208\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10208"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10208"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10208"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}