{"id":119103,"date":"2002-03-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002"},"modified":"2016-10-21T03:25:14","modified_gmt":"2016-10-20T21:55:14","slug":"p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"P. Periasamy vs The General Manager on 15 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P. Periasamy vs The General Manager on 15 March, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS          \n\n DATED: 15-3-2002  \n\n CORAM:  \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH        \n\n W.P.NO.21366 Of 2001 and W.M.P.No.31550 of 2001 and W.V.M.P.No.100 of 2002       \n\n P. Periasamy, \nS\/o Ponnusamy,  \n114, St. Joseph Nagar,\nKondur, \nCuddalore  607 001.            ...             Petitioner\n\n                                                Vs.\n\n The General Manager \n(Operation),\nTamil Nadu State Transport\nCorporation,\nVillupuram (Division-I) Ltd.,\nVillupuram  605 602.           ...             Respondent\n\n\n                For Petitioner:  ...   Mr.S. Balasubramanian\n                For Respondent:  ...   Mr.S. Jayaraman       \n\n\n                This  writ  petition  is  filed  under  Article  226  of   the\nConstitution  for  the  issue  of  a  certiorarified  mandamus to call for the\nrecords of the respondent in his proceedings Ka.Ku.No.1047\/1929\/TS\/TNSTC\/2001,  \nquash  his  notice  dated  24.10.2001  and  direct  the  respondent  to   take\ndisciplinary  action  against  the petitioner for the charges levelled against\nhim by the respondent pursuant to his notice dated 21-6-2001 after  conducting\nfresh enquiry against him.\n\n:                                    ORDER \n<\/pre>\n<p>                By  consent  the  main  writ  petition itself was taken up and<br \/>\narguments heard.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition may  be<br \/>\nsummarised as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>                The  writ  petitioner  was  working  as  a  Conductor  in  the<br \/>\nrespondent Depot at Cuddalore.  Alleging  misconduct  of  misappropriation  as<br \/>\nfound  by the Auditing Committee, charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on<br \/>\n21.6.2001.  The charges in main were that:  when he  was  performing  duty  in<br \/>\nroute  No.310-G  service  between  Cuddalore and Trichy, apart from taking the<br \/>\nregular ticket book for that route, he had also taken the ticket books of some<br \/>\nother route and also the invoices;  he  had  corrected  the  ticket  book  and<br \/>\ninvoice  of the other route whenever the Checking Inspector inspected, so that<br \/>\nthey tallied with the actual collection, which he remitted to the  office;  he<br \/>\nhad  also  suppressed  the  amount  collected  on  the issuance of ticket book<br \/>\nrelating to such other route and misappropriated the same; he also forged  the<br \/>\nsignatures of drivers, who were working with him, as for example, on 9.10.2000<br \/>\nand 19-10-2000  he  misappropriated huge sums of money.  It was found that the<br \/>\npetitioner during the period 1-4-1999 to 30-11-2000 had suppressed and did not<br \/>\nbring into account 114 invoices and 36963 tickets.  The value  of  the  amount<br \/>\nthus misappropriated by the writ petitioner would come to Rs.14,23,000\/-.  The<br \/>\npetitioner  was  charged  under  clauses  20(4),  34 and 37-A of the Certified<br \/>\nStanding Orders of the Corporation.  The petitioner was directed to submit his<br \/>\nexplanation within seven days.  After a good passage of time, he submitted his<br \/>\nreply on 24-7-2001 denying the charges.  The  Corporation  was  not  satisfied<br \/>\nwith the  explanation  offered  and  ordered  a domestic enquiry.  A notice of<br \/>\nenquiry dated 6-8-2001 was sent to the petitioner intimating  that  one  Mr.T.<br \/>\nRangarajan, Retired Judge, had been appointed as Enquiry Officer.  The enquiry<br \/>\nwas to  take  place on 16-8-2001 at the Villupuram Head Office at 10 a.m.  The<br \/>\npetitioner wrote a letter on 11-8-2001 insisting that the  enquiry  should  be<br \/>\nheld  in some depot other than Villupuram Depot and wanted the Enquiry Officer<br \/>\nto be changed.  The enquiry was  adjourned  to  10-9-2001.    The  petitioner,<br \/>\ninstead  of attending the domestic enquiry, sent a telegram to the Corporation<br \/>\nthat he would not attend the enquiry since the Enquiry Officer and  the  venue<br \/>\nof the  enquiry had not been changed as per his request.  As he had refused to<br \/>\nattend the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer setting him  exparte,  proceeded  with<br \/>\nthe enquiry.   The Management examined two witnesses on its side.  The Enquiry<br \/>\nOfficer  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  charges  levelled  against  the<br \/>\npetitioner were  found proved.  The Corporation concurred with the findings of<br \/>\nthe Enquiry Officer and having regard to the seriousness and  gravity  of  the<br \/>\nmisconduct and the loss caused to the Corporation and on a perusal of his past<br \/>\nrecord ,  the Corporation proposed to remove him from service.  The petitioner<br \/>\nwas directed to submit his reply to the second show cause notice within  seven<br \/>\ndays from  the  date  of  receipt  of  the  notice.    He  took time twice for<br \/>\nsubmitting his reply and without submitting any reply, he moved this Court  on<br \/>\n7-11-2001 and obtained an order of status quo.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.The main  contention  of  Mr.S.    Balasubramanian,  learned<br \/>\nCounsel for the petitioner, is that the Enquiry  Officer,  who  had  conducted<br \/>\nenquiry  for the Corporation, had always held in favour of the Corporation and<br \/>\nagainst the interest of the employees and that the petitioner  was  therefore,<br \/>\njustified  in  seeking  change  of Enquiry Officer, that though the respondent<br \/>\nCorporation conceded the demand of the petitioner with  regard  to  change  of<br \/>\nvenue,  it  was  not  justified  in  refusing  to  change the Enquiry Officer.<br \/>\nAccording to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer would be biased against  him.<br \/>\nThe  learned  Counsel  also relied on a judgment of a Bench of the Orissa High<br \/>\nCourt reported in HAREKRISHNA DAS VS.  UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (1993(I)  LLJ\n<\/p>\n<p>20)  in  support  of  his contention that when a person expresses apprehension<br \/>\nabout the impartiality of an Enquiry  Officer,  that  would  be  a  sufficient<br \/>\nground for changing the Enquiry Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  Per  contra,  Mr.S.    Jayaraman,  learned Counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent Corporation, vehemently submitted  that  there  was  absolutely  no<br \/>\njustification  on  the part of the writ petitioner to have avoided the enquiry<br \/>\nand stayed away.  No bias at all could be attributed to  the  Enquiry  Officer<br \/>\nand the  same  had  not  been  substantiated  by  the petitioner.  The learned<br \/>\nCounsel further submitted  that  even  assuming  without  conceding  that  the<br \/>\nEnquiry  Officer  had  entered a wrong finding, it would always be open to the<br \/>\npetitioner to go before the Labour Court and it would be for the Labour  Court<br \/>\nto  satisfy  itself  about  the  manner in which the domestic enquiry had been<br \/>\nconducted, whether it was vitiated and whether there was lack of evidence,  in<br \/>\nwhich  event  it  would  be  open to the employer to lead independent evidence<br \/>\nbefore the Labour Court and court a decision.   According   to   the   learned<br \/>\nCounsel,  the writ petition was totally misconceived and no case had been made<br \/>\nout for interference.  The learned Counsel further submitted that this  was  a<br \/>\ncase  where lakhs of rupees had been found to have been misappropriated by the<br \/>\npetitioner and the petitioner knowing fully well  that  he  did  not  stand  a<br \/>\nchance, had been only stalling the proceedings and he should not be allowed to<br \/>\nget away with it.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   No  doubt, there is substance in what the learned Counsel<br \/>\nfor the respondent submitted.  But then it is an  exparte  order  and  in  the<br \/>\ncircumstances,  I  am  of  the view that an opportunity can be afforded to the<br \/>\npetitioner to have a decision on merits, but then not with  a  change  of  the<br \/>\nEnquiry Officer.   Absolutely no case is made out for holding that the Enquiry<br \/>\nOfficer is biased.  The decision relied on by  the  learned  Counsel  for  the<br \/>\npetitioner  has held that a request for change of inquiring authority is to be<br \/>\ndecided not from the point of view of the disciplinary authority, but from the<br \/>\nangle of the employee concerned and that it is not necessary that bias must be<br \/>\nactually present in the inquiring authority, but it is sufficient if there  is<br \/>\nreasonable  apprehension  regarding  impartiality  of the inquiring authority.<br \/>\nHowever, the decision cautions that mere fanciful or imaginary claim  of  bias<br \/>\nwould not  sustain the plea for change of inquiring authority.  The test is as<br \/>\nto  whether  a  man  of  reasonable  prudence,  if  placed  in   the   similar<br \/>\ncircumstances  as  that  of  the  employee,  would  have thought the inquiring<br \/>\nauthority to be biased against him.  On facts the Bench  of  the  Orissa  High<br \/>\nCourt  found  that there was no way of developing a reasonable apprehension of<br \/>\nbias in the inquiring authority, since he never acted contrary to the interest<br \/>\nof the petitioner.  In that case, a few documents were sought to be  exhibited<br \/>\nby  the  petitioner, but those were documents, which were non-existent and the<br \/>\ninquiring authority explained it to the delinquent officer that those were not<br \/>\navailable and the preliminary inquiry repor t which was not a document  to  be<br \/>\ninspected  was  not  shown  to  him  and it could not therefore be said that a<br \/>\nreasonable man would have been threatened with apprehension of bias  in  mind.<br \/>\nThe  Bench  pointed out that it was on the other hand as if the petitioner had<br \/>\nthe single objective of  avoiding  the  inquiry  and  there  was  as  such  no<br \/>\njustification for the demand for the change of the inquiring authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.The  decision  relied  on  by  the  learned  Counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner does not really support the case of the petitioner.    Even  before<br \/>\nthe  enquiry  started,  the  petitioner sought change of venue and the Enquiry<br \/>\nOfficer and absolutely no tenable objection had been raised by him against the<br \/>\nEnquiry Officer.  Some statement had been made that in the previous  enquiries<br \/>\nhe  had  favoured  the  Management, that he had not allowed the delinquents to<br \/>\ncross -examine the witnesses on the side  of  the  Management.    No  specific<br \/>\ninstance  of  any  such  behaviour on the part of the Enquiry Officer has been<br \/>\nmentioned anywhere.  I am satisfied that the contention on  the  part  of  the<br \/>\npetitioner  to  ask for change of Enquiry Officer on the ground of bias cannot<br \/>\nat all be sustained.  The attempt has been only to stall the proceedings.  The<br \/>\nmisconduct attributed to the petitioner is very grave.  The Enquiry Officer, I<br \/>\nam aware, has had a  clean  record  in  the  judiciary  and  no  bias  can  be<br \/>\nattributed to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.In  sum,  while  setting  aside  the  report on the basis of<br \/>\nexparte enquiry and the consequent second show cause notice, I direct a  fresh<br \/>\nenquiry  to  be conducted in which the petitioner will participate without any<br \/>\nobjection and without indulging in delaying tactics.   The  enquiry  shall  be<br \/>\ncompleted  within  a  period  of  three  months  from  the  date of receipt or<br \/>\nproduction of a copy of the order in the writ petition.  The petitioner  shall<br \/>\nco-operate  as  also  the  Management  for  completing  the enquiry within the<br \/>\nstipulated time.  No unjustified adjournments shall be allowed by the  Enquiry<br \/>\nOfficer.  The  writ  petition  is  disposed  of  on the above terms.  The stay<br \/>\npetition  in  W.M.P.No.31550\/200  1  and   the   vacate   stay   petition   in<br \/>\nM.V.M.P.No.100\/2002 are closed.  There will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>15-3-2002<br \/>\nIndex:  Yes<br \/>\nIGP <\/p>\n<p>TO<br \/>\nThe General Manager<br \/>\n(Operation),<br \/>\nTamil Nadu State Transport<br \/>\nCorporation,<br \/>\nVillupuram (Division-I) Ltd.,<br \/>\nVillupuram  605 602.\n<\/p>\n<p>K.  SAMPATH, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>W.P.NO.21366 of 2001<br \/>\nand<br \/>\nW.M.P.No.31550\/2001 &amp;<br \/>\nM.V.M.P.No.100\/2002<br \/>\n15-3-2002 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court P. Periasamy vs The General Manager on 15 March, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-3-2002 CORAM: THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH W.P.NO.21366 Of 2001 and W.M.P.No.31550 of 2001 and W.V.M.P.No.100 of 2002 P. Periasamy, S\/o Ponnusamy, 114, St. Joseph Nagar, Kondur, Cuddalore 607 001. &#8230; Petitioner [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-119103","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>P. Periasamy vs The General Manager on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P. Periasamy vs The General Manager on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-20T21:55:14+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P. Periasamy vs The General Manager on 15 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-20T21:55:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1619,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002\",\"name\":\"P. Periasamy vs The General Manager on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-20T21:55:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P. Periasamy vs The General Manager on 15 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"P. Periasamy vs The General Manager on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P. Periasamy vs The General Manager on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-20T21:55:14+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P. Periasamy vs The General Manager on 15 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-20T21:55:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002"},"wordCount":1619,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002","name":"P. Periasamy vs The General Manager on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-20T21:55:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-periasamy-vs-the-general-manager-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P. Periasamy vs The General Manager on 15 March, 2002"}]},{"@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\/119103","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=119103"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119103\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119103"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119103"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119103"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}