{"id":123407,"date":"2010-07-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010"},"modified":"2016-01-10T15:31:57","modified_gmt":"2016-01-10T10:01:57","slug":"m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"M.N.Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 30 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
M.N.Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 30 July, 2010<\/div>\n
                                Judgment reserved on 04.05.2010\n                               Judgment delivered on 30.07.2010\n\n             Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.48264 of 2008\n               M.N. Verma Vs. Union of India & Ors.\n\nHon. Sunil Ambwani, J.\n<\/pre>\n
Hon. Kashi Nath Pandey, J.\n<\/p>\n
       The petitioner was appointed as clerk\/ typist in State Bank
\nof India in the year 1967. He was granted promotion in the officers
\ncadre on 15.11.1977 and in Officer Middle Management Grade
\nScale-II on 1.11.1990. The petitioner was, thereafter, promoted as
\nBranch Manager at CMP Degree College, Allahabad Branch of the
\nbank on 30.1.2004.\n<\/p>\n
       By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for writ of
\ncertiorari    quashing the order dated 20.4.2007 passed by the
\nGeneral-II, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow, as
\nalso the order dated 12.3.2008 by which he was dismissed from
\nservice in terms of Rule 67 (j) of the State Bank of India Officers
\nService Rules for having violated Rule 50 (4) of the SBI Officers
\nServices Rules; and the appellate order dated 12.3.2008 passed by
\nthe Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head
\nOffice, Lucknow, dismissing the departmental appeal.\n<\/p>\n
       The petitioner was placed under suspension in terms of Rule
\n68 (A) of the SBI Officers Service Rules on 18.6.2005 on certain
\nacts of gross misconduct during his posting as Branch Manager
\nin CMP Degree College at Allahabad.         He was served with
\nchargesheet dated 27.1.2006 and 31.1.2006 alleging as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
       “Charge No.1
\n       You failed to conduct Pre-sanction survey before
\n       sanctioning Housing Loan and Post disbursement Inspection
\n       and released installments without ensuring stage wise
\n       constructions and end use of funds of installments already
\n       disbursed. You disbursed next installments without taking
\n       the actual progress of constructions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
        ALLEGATION ON WHICH CHARGE NO.1 IS BASED<\/p>\n
        Housing loans were sanctioned for the plots located in
\n        extensively Agricultural area lacking basic facilities like
\n        water, road, electricity etc. Installments were disbursed
\n        without linkage to stage wise construction.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Due to this act, the loan amount was disbursed while the
\n        houses were only nominally\/ partially or totally not
\n        constructed.    Further while disbursing of next loan
\n        installment, you did not adopt need-based approach linking
\n        disbursement to actual progress of construction. Thus you
\n        flagrantly violated Bank’s instructions and exposed the
\n        Bank to financial loss e.g.<\/p>\n
Account No.       Name (S\/Shri) Date of           Amount Rs.<\/p>\n
\n                                Sanction\n26513             N.K. Nishad         26.05.04    5.00 lac\n26636             S.K. Yadav          16.07.04    3.64 lac\n26601             S. Srivastava       13.06.04    4.55 lac\n26652             A. Pandey           11.08.04    5.00 lac\n26449             Vijay               15.02.04    5.00 lac\n26497             A.K. Gupta          14.03.04    5.00 lac\n26462             A. Malviya          24.03.04    5.00 lac\n26509             R. Sahu             24.03.04    5.00 lac\n26522             A.K. Bhola          17.04.04    5.00 lac\n26594             M.C.                25.05.04    5.00 lac\n                  Kesarwani\n\n        Charge No.2\n<\/pre>\n
        You failed to cross check the Income tax returns submitted
\n        by the borrowers for availing Housing Loans.\n<\/p>\n
        ALLEGATION ON WHICH CHARGE NO.2 IS BASED<\/p>\n
        The genuineness of ITRs, being the basis for sanction of
\n        loans were     not cross checked either by obtaining
\n        assessment certificate of copy of statement of account or
\n        Pass Book e.g.<\/p>\n
        26613, 16636, 26601, 26652, 26449, 26497, 26462, 26509,
\n        26522, 26594
\n                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
Charge No.3
\nWhile appraising Housing loans, availability of margin
\nmoney\/ deficit to be met by the borrowers have not been
\nascertained and brought on record.\n<\/p>\n
ALLEGATION ON WHICH CHARGE NO.3 IS BASED<\/p>\n
You sanctioned and disbursed the Housing Loans without
\nensuring the actual availability of margin money with the
\nborrowers, resulting in the projects remaining incomplete
\ne.g.\n<\/p>\n
26613, 26636, 26601, 26652, 26449, 26497, 26462, 26509,
\n26522, 26594<\/p>\n
Charge No.4
\nRole of middleman have been allowed by you in sanction of
\nhousing loan in as much as even submission of Income Tax
\nreturns were arranged by him.\n<\/p>\n
ALLEGATION ON WHICH CHARGE NO.4 IS BASED
\nACCOUNT OF ALFRED DAVID & SMT. DORTHY DAVID<\/p>\n
You sanctioned on 01.03.2004 a Housing Loan of Rs.5.00
\nlacs to Shri Alfred David and Smt. Dorthy David with the
\ninvolvement of middle man Shri Ravi Srivastava and
\ninstallments were released without ensuring end use of
\nprevious installments.\n<\/p>\n
Charge No.5
\nAccommodation loan was given by you to close loan account
\nsanctioned earlier.\n<\/p>\n
ALLEGATION ON WHICH CHARGE NO.5 IS BASED<\/p>\n
You sanctioned Housing loan on 19.02.2004 for Rs.2.00 lacs
\nto Smt. Sushma Chaurasia and Shri Suresh Kumar for
\nconstruction of house. Smt. Sushma Chaurasia purchased a
\nready build house of ADA from Suman Devi, and 75% of the
\nloan amount i.e. Rs.1,51,313.91 was allowed to be
\ntransferred to Housing Loan Account No.26450 of Shri
\nSuresh Kumar on 06.04.04 to close his Housing Loan
\naccount.\n<\/p>\n
Charge No.6
\nA number of limits i.e. cash credit limit of Rs.5.00 lac &
\nRs.7.50 lac were irregular sanctioned by you for giving
\nundue benefits to the borrower Shri Amit Ganguli.\n<\/p>\n
                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
ALLEGATION ON WHICH CHARGE NO.6 IS BASED<\/p>\n
A number of limits have been irregularly sanction by you to
\nShri Amit Ganguli for giving undue benefits to him. The
\nirregularities committed by you are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
   (i) Cash Credit limit of Rs.5 lacs has been sanctioned on
\n        26.04.2004 to M\/s A.R. Sales Corporation (Shri Amit
\n        Ganguli Partner) despite the fact that Cash Credit
\n        limit of Rs.2.50 lacs sanctioned on 30.01.04 to M\/s
\n        Ganguli Optical Science Emporium (Shri Amit
\n        Ganguli, Proprietor) was already running in the
\n        Branch.       The business as shown of the firm is
\n        entirely different. Out of the Cash Credit limit of
\n        Rs.2.50 lac sanctioned on 30.01.2004 and disbursed
\n        on 06.02.2004, you transferred a sum of Rs.2.00 lac
\n        to current account No.01050070031 of Shri Ganguli.
\n        End use of the funds was thus not ensured.\n<\/p>\n
   (ii) The limit of Rs.5.00 lacs has been disbursed on
\n        27.04.2004 and a sum of Rs.4.99 lac was allowed to
\n        be withdrawn in cash on the same day without
\n        ensuring end use thereof.\n<\/p>\n
   (iii)Although the disbursal has been made on
\n        27.04.2004, the partnership deed of the firm was
\n        executed on 04.03.2005.        The limit was thus
\n        sanctioned\/ disbursed to a non-existing firm.\n<\/p>\n
   (iv)You sanctioned\/ disbursed the loan on 27.04.2004 to
\n        enable Shri Ganguli to purchase on 11.05.2004 part
\n        of house No.129\/140 with the proceeds of the loan.
\n        Thus you passed on undue advantage to Shri
\n        Ganguli.\n<\/p>\n
   (v) The limit was released on 27.04.2004 without
\n        creating Equitable Mortgage. It was created on
\n        12.05.2004 of the house purchased on 11.05.2004.
\n        You have thus allowed diversion of Cash Credit
\n        funds.\n<\/p>\n
   (vi)You sanctioned a Cash Credit limit of Rs.7.50 lacs,
\n        Account No.01660065117 (10518192746) on
\n        14.10.2004 to M\/s. Ganguli Optical Science
\n        Emporium (Shri Amit Ganguli Proprietor). Proceeds
\n        of this loan have been allowed by you to be diverted
\n        as under:\n<\/p>\n
        (a)    Rs.5.00 lacs to Cash Credit Account of M\/s
\n               A.R. Sales Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
        (b)    Rs.2.50 lacs to Cash Credit Account of M\/s.\n<\/p>\n
               Ganguli Optical & Science emporium.\n<\/p>\n
   (vii)You sanctioned the above limit of Rs.7.50 lac without
\n       the recommendation of the Field Officer posted at the
\n       Branch.\n<\/p>\n
                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
          (viii)The limit has been disbursed without obtaining
\n              collateral security.      Equitable Mortgage of
\n              residential property purchased on 22.07.2004 has
\n              been obtained on 24.11.2004 i.e. after more than one
\n              month of the disbursement of Cash Credit limit.\n<\/p>\n
          (ix)There are no transaction in the Cash Credit Account
\n              No.01660065117 (10518192746) excepting the
\n              details shown above. The account has turned NPA
\n              with outstanding in excess of Rs.7.78 lacs. The limit
\n              has been sanctioned by you to a non-existent unit.”\n<\/p>\n
       The prosecution documents were supplied to the petitioner
\nwith covering letter dated 24.5.2006 enclosing all the documents to
\nbe relied upon in the departmental enquiry in respect of each of the
\nallegations. The petitioner verified the receipt of the documents on
\n23.6.2006 with an exception that on allegation Nos.1, 2 and 3 the
\ndocuments listed at Item No.I and II were not made available, the
\nphotocopy was produced, which was not acceptable to the
\npetitioner. The rest of the documents were perused in original. On
\nallegation No.4 the original documents were perused except item
\nlisted against Point No.5 namely letter dated 20.5.2005 of Shri
\nAlfred David (Borrower).     With regard to allegation No.5 the
\noriginal documents except document at Point No.5 namely Unit
\nInspection Register of the two loan accounts was perused by him.
\nIn respect of charge No.6 the original documents were perused
\nexcept item No.8 listed against (viii) namely statement of Shri R.P.
\nGautam, the then Field Officer dated 20.5.2005.      The petitioner
\nsubmitted his reply and also submitted a list of defence documents
\non 18.7.2006.\n<\/p>\n
       The presenting officer’s brief was submitted on 7.11.2006
\nand was given to the petitioner containing therewith arguments of
\nthe Presenting Officer, in respect of each of the loan account
\nmentioned in the charges. The petitioner submitted his defence
\nbrief on 27.2.2007. His case was defended by his defence
\nrepresentative Shri G.C. Verma.     The preliminary hearing of the
\ncase was held on 21.4.2006 at Vigilance Department, State Bank
\nof India, Local Head Office, Lucknow and the regular hearing
\n                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
took place on 26.9.2006 at State Bank of India, CMP Degree
\nCollege, Allahabad Branch and the enquiry was concluded on the
\nsame day. The findings of the enquiry officer on each of the
\ncharges are given as below:-\n<\/p>\n
              “I have examined the arguments of prosecution and
\n       defence and it is observed that Charged Officer has
\n       sanctioned and disbursed the above housing loans on Arazi
\n       land No.41, situated at Mauza-Dhanua, Pargana-Arail,
\n       Tehsil-Karchna.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Defence has produced DEX (1\/20, 2\/1-26, 3\/1-22, 4\/1-30,
\n       5\/1-33, 6\/1-21, 7\/1-31, 8\/1-23, 9\/1-37, 10\/1-26) in respect
\n       of copies of the sale deed, Lawyer’s NEC report and
\n       Recital in respect of above housing loans. From perusal of
\n       the sale deed DEX (1\/65, 2\/12, 3\/11, 4\/9, 5\/23, 6\/12, 7\/16,
\n       8\/13, 9\/14-15, 10\/11, it is observed that all the plots under
\n       reference are located in residential area under the Awas
\n       Vikas limits and the land is being used for the residential
\n       purposes. Defence has also argued that infrastructure like
\n       water, roads and electricity etc. are available thereat. The
\n       contention of defence in respect of other part of allegation
\n       that subsequent loan installments were recommended for
\n       payment by the Field Officer is not tenable, as defence
\n       themselves argued that all the remarks (adverse) were
\n       incorporated by the Field Officer him self in the Inspection
\n       Register.     Both the arguments of the defence are
\n       contradictory to each other. It is, therefore, evident that
\n       Charged Officer has released the subsequent housing
\n       loan installments without ensuring the end use of funds
\n       of the previous installments and without linkage to actual
\n       progress of construction of the houses, which resulted in
\n       non completion of the projects in respect of all the above
\n       housing loans.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              I, therefore, hold allegation No.1 as partly
\n       substantiated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       I have examined the arguments of prosecution and defence
\n       and it is observed that although 3 years ITRs are enclosed
\n       with all the housing loan documents in case of account
\n       no.26513, 26652 and 26522 one year Tax deposit challen
\n       is enclosed but figures incorporated in the ITRs are not
\n       evidenced to ascertain their genuineness. The contention
\n       of the defence that Savings Bank Account statements were
\n       although obtained by the Charged Officer at the material
\n       time but later being misplaced, while handing over the
\n       documents to CBI Officials is not tenable, as all      the
\n       documents were handed over to the CBI Officials were duly
\n       listed and duly acknowledged by them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
      I, therefore,     hold   the   allegation   No.2   as\nsubstantiated.\n\n<\/pre>\n
       I have examined the arguments of prosecution and
\ndefence and it is observed that margin money as stipulated
\nby the Bank must be deposited by the borrowers as their
\nstake in the project, which was not deposited by the
\nborrowers in respect of all the above cases. The contention
\nof defence regarding treating the borrowers investment in
\nthe plot as margin money is not tenable.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       I, therefore, hold the allegation No.3 as
\nsubstantiated.\n<\/p>\n
       I have examined the arguments of prosecution and
\ndefence and it is observed that allegation of involvement of
\nmiddleman could not be established due to non production
\nof Shri Alfred David, the housing loan borrower in the
\nenquiry proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
       Regarding arranging of ITRs by the middleman and
\nreleasing the loan installments without ensuring the end
\nuse of funds is also not established as the prosecution
\ncould not produce any documentary evidence in support of
\ntheir contention. I, therefore, hold the allegation No.4 as
\nnot substantiated.\n<\/p>\n
       Therefore, Charge No.4 stands not proved.\n<\/p>\n
       I have examined the arguments of prosecution and
\ndefence and it is observed that Charged Officer has
\ntransferred a part loan amount of the new housing loan to
\nclose the outstanding      of the previous housing loan
\nsanctioned and disbursed to the same borrower to
\naccommodate him. I, therefore, hold the allegations No.5
\nas substantiated.\n<\/p>\n
       Therefore, charge No.5 stands proved.\n<\/p>\n
        I have examined the arguments of prosecution and
\ndefence and it is observed that Charged Officer has
\nsanctioned and disbursed Cash credit Limits to M\/s A.R.
\nSales Corporation and M\/s Ganguli Opticals & Science
\nEmporium of Rs.5.00 lacs and Rs.7.50 lacs respectively and
\nallowed the diversion of funds to their other accounts. Shri
\nAmit Ganguli transferred the funds of the firm to his
\npersonal account, which was evidenced vide statement of
\naccount enclosed with the loan documents. From perusal
\nof loan documents, it is observed that a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs
\nand Rs.2.50 lacs were diverted to other account and not
\nutilized for the activity for which Cash Credit limit was
\nsanctioned to the firm. It is, therefore, evident that
\nCharged Officer has unduly accommodated Shri Amit
\nGanguli. The contention of the Defence that Cash Credit
\n                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
         limit of Rs.2.50 lacs sanctioned to M\/s Ganguli Optical &
\n         Science Emporium dated 31.1.2004 was not sanctioned by
\n         the Charged Officer but sanctioned by the previous
\n         incumbent, is not tenable, as disbursement of the C\/C limit
\n         was done by the Charged Officer. The contention of the
\n         Charged Officer that Field Officer, posted in the Branch
\n         at the material time not recommend the sanction of cash
\n         credit limits due to lack of job knowledge in not tenable. I,
\n         therefore, hold the allegation No.6 as substantiated.\n<\/p>\n
                 Therefore, Charge No.6 stands proved.”\n<\/p>\n
         The enquiry officer in his report dated 9.3.2007 thus found
\ncharge No.1 to be partly proved, the charge Nos.2 and 3         to be
\nproved, charge No.4 to be not proved and charge Nos.5 and 6 to be
\nproved.\n<\/p>\n
         The petitioner submitted his defence to the enquiring
\nauthorities    dated 9.3.2007, which was received by him on
\n15.3.2007. His defence statement dated 20.3.2007 was considered
\nby the General Manager-II\/ appointing authority. It was found by
\nhim that lapses are serious in nature and have caused loss to the
\nbank. The petitioner failed to discharge his duty with utmost
\nsincerity, dignity, devotion and diligence, and acted in a manner
\nunbecoming of an officer in violation to rule 50 (4) of the SBI
\nOfficers Service Rules. His conduct was highly detrimental to the
\nbank interest.     The appointing authority further find that the
\npetitioner has tried to shift the burden of responsibility towards
\nField Officer. The petitioner released the installment of house loan
\nwithout ensuring the margin money and end use of funds. He
\nunduly accommodated a policy of transferring the proceeds of cash
\ncredit of the firm in the personal account of the proprietor of the
\nfirm. These acts were found to be in violation of Rule 50 (4) of the
\nSBI Officers Service Rules. The appointing authority thus decided
\nand punished the petitioner with penalty of dismissal from service
\nin terms of Rule 67 (j) of the State Bank of India Officers Service
\nRules.     The suspension period was directed to be treated as such,
\nthat is, not to be counted as on duty and no salary and allowance
\nwould be payable except subsistence allowance, which was already
\n                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
paid to him. The petitioner’s appeal to the appellant authority was
\ndismissed by a long and reasoned order considering his defence on
\neach of the allegations and grounds in detail by order of the
\nappellate authority\/ Chief General Manager, State Bank of India,
\nLocal Head Office, Lucknow dated 12.3.2008.          Aggrieved the
\npetitioner filed this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
       The petitioner was dismissed from service 10 days before
\nthe date of his superannuation.\n<\/p>\n
       Shri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
\nthat the departmental enquiry was not conducted in conformity with
\nprinciple of natural justice. Some of the documents in support of
\nthe charges were not supplied nor inspection permitted. There was
\nno order rejecting such request or communicating any reason for
\nnon supply\/ non inspection of the documents.            The list of
\ndocuments supplied clearly indicates that statement of Shri R.P.
\nGautam, the then Field Officer dated 20.5.2005 enumerated at Item
\nNo.8 under allegation No.6 was not supplied.         The petitioner,
\ntherefore, could not prepare his defence. The copy of the laid down
\nbank instructions to be followed for ascertaining genuineness of the
\nincome tax returns as also the instructions regarding obtaining
\nassessment certificates were also not provided. Copy of the title
\ndeed in respect of loan account was not given tot he petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
       Shri Ashok Khare submits that allegations levelled against
\nthe petitioner and the findings recorded do not make out any of the
\ncharge of misconduct for initiating disciplinary action and to
\npunish the petitioner. The enquiry report demonstrates that the
\nfindings recorded are only with regard to technical breach of
\nprocedure and sanction of loans.       There was no allegation or
\nfinding with regard to any ill-will, ulterior motive and the loss
\ncauses to the bank.      The entire enquiry was held     within one
\nworking day and the petitioner was dismissed 10 days before his
\nretirement after 40 years of satisfactory service in which his work
\nand conduct was appreciated and he had received regular
\n                                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
promotion. During his entire career the petitioner has sanctioned
\nthousands of loans without any allegation of irregularity.       The
\npenalty of dismissal is wholly disproportionate with the allegations
\nlevelled against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
       Shri Ashok Khare has relied upon the judgments of the
\nSupreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. J. Ahmed, (1979)
\n2 SCC 286 to submit that deficiency in personal character or
\npersonal apology do not constitute          misconduct for taking
\ndisciplinary action.      The matter of efficiency, failure to attain
\nhighest standard of administrative ability while holding a high post
\nwould not by itself constitute misconduct.          There must be
\nnegligence in performance of duty and lapse in performance or
\nerror of judgment in evaluating the developing situations but that
\ndoes not constitute misconduct unless the consequences directly
\nattributable to negligence are such, as are irreparable or the
\nresultant damage is so heavy that the degree of culpability would be
\nvery high. An error can be indicative of negligence. Carelessness
\ncan often be productive of more harm than deliberate wickedness or
\nmalevolence. But in any case, failure to attain the highest standard
\nof efficiency in performance of duty     permitting an inference of
\nnegligence does not constitute misconduct.\n<\/p>\n
       Shri Ashok Khare submits relying upon State of Punjab &
\nOrs. Vs. Ram Singh Ex-Constable, (1992) 4 SCC 54 that there
\nis distinction between ‘gravest misconduct’ and ‘grave misconduct’.
\nBefore awarding an order of dismissal          it is mandatory that
\ndismissal order    is made only when there are gravest acts of
\nmisconduct, since it impinges upon the pensionary rights of the
\ndelinquent after putting long length of service. In this case a
\nconstable was loitering in a drunken condition near bus stand while
\non duty and when brought to hospital abused the doctors, the court
\nheld that the act constitute gravest act of misconduct warranting
\ndismissal from service.\n<\/p>\n
                                11<\/span><\/p>\n
        In State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Mangalik,
\n(2002) 3 SCC 443 the Supreme Court held that where charge of
\ncommission of irregularities is not result of mere omission or lack
\nof competence the question whether the charge constituted
\nmisconduct or not would depend upon the factual statements in the
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
        In Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Government of NCT of
\nDelhi & Ors., (2007) 4 SCC 566 the Supreme Court reiterated that
\nthe error of judgment or negligence simplicitor is not misconduct.
\nIn a given case what should have been done, depends on the facts
\nand circumstances of the case and no hard and fast rule can be laid
\ndown. The petitioner was Inspector (Malaria). A member of the
\nraiding party offerred tainted money to him. He refused to accept
\nit. The tainted money was not seized and that prosecution ended in
\nacquittal. In disciplinary proceedings no finding was recorded that
\ndelinquent police inspector was guilty of an unlawful behaviour in
\nrelation to discharge of his duties.   The Supreme Court said that
\nin the given circumstances, the appellant cannot be said to have
\ncommitted any misconduct.\n<\/p>\n
        On the proportionality of punishment to the charges levelled
\nagainst the officer, Shri Ashok Khare has relied upon Bhagat Ram
\nVs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 1993 SCC (L&S) 342 in
\nwhich it was held that dismissal on trivial charge namely where out
\nof 21 trees 17 were in forest and 4 were on the private land of an
\nindividual. Forest guard had paid compensation for illegal felling
\ncausing loss to the government. On the joint enquiry the enquiry
\nagainst the co-delinquent was separated. One of the three charges
\nwere proved against the appellant. There was no evidence led to
\nshow that the appellant as Class-IV employee was aware of all
\ntechnical rules prescribed for holding enquiry and was entitled to
\nbe defended by a government servant of his choice. The enquiry
\nwas found to be held in violation of principle of natural justice and
\nthat while allowing the appeal the Supreme Court observed that a
\n                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
minor infraction of duty leading to a trivial charge of negligence
\nof checking hammer marks on trees and which did not cause any
\nloss to the government, it was not fair to punish the employee and
\nalso to order a fresh enquiry.      The Supreme Court found that
\nwithholding two increments with future effect and payment of 50%
\narrears would be sufficient punishment.\n<\/p>\n
       Shri Vipin Sinha appearing for the bank would submit that
\nall the documents relied upon by the bank were given to the
\npetitioner to prove the allegations against him.    The complete set
\nof such documents; application with all enclosures including salary
\ncertificate, income proof, IT return      forms and unit inspection
\nregister were provided to him. The defence representative gave a
\ncertificate on 25th September, 2006 that all the documents have
\nbeen perused. The documents listed at Item No.5 under allegation
\nNo.4 relating to letter dated 20th May, 2005 of Shri Alfred David
\nwas also perused by the petitioner. Unit Inspection Register in
\nrespect of allegation NO.5 of the two loan account was also perused
\nand signed and the minute of proceedings was singed by the
\nchargesheeted officer. In para 19 o the counter affidavit it is stated
\nthat after perusing the minutes of the enquiry, the enquiring officer
\nadvised the chargesheeted officer that since the perusal of the
\noriginal prosecution and defence document has been done, whether
\nthese were genuine and were to be admitted, the chargesheeted
\nofficer confirmed and admitted the genuineness of the documents
\nperused by him. The certificate of inspection dated 25th September,
\n2006 clearly bears the testimony to perusal of all the documents
\nby the petitioner and thereafter no objection of non supply of
\ndocument was made by him in the enquiry proceedings. Further
\nit is stated in para 24 that a report in respect of CMP Degree
\nCollege, Allahabad Branch was lodged by the bank with CBI. As
\nper the Rules and norms the CBI Officer has taken custody of the
\noriginal documents. The notorised duplicate copy of the documents
\nwere, however, kept in the branch, which were perused by the
\n                                13<\/span><\/p>\n
charge sheeted officer. He had taken no objection to perusing
\nthese documents. The CBI        had found sufficient material     for
\ninitiating action against the petitioner and for the said purpose
\nsanction was also sought but in the meanwhile the petitioner was
\ndismissed from service.\n<\/p>\n
       It is denied by Shri Vipin Sinha that the bank did not suffer
\nany financial loss on account of negligence of the petitioner in
\nsanctioning loan transactions.        In para 36 it is clearly stated
\nrelying upon loss statement prepared by the bank that the bank had
\nsufferred a financial loss to the tune of Rs.73,48,421.16.\n<\/p>\n
       In reply Shri Khare submits that the allegations of financial
\nloss is wholly imaginary. There was no allegation or charge against
\nthe petitioner for embezzlement or financial improprietory. The
\nentire amount of gratuity has been paid to the petitioner and that
\nCBI Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Act has in Case No.51
\nof 2007; RC No.18A\/5, State Vs. S.N. Lal under Section 120B,
\n420, 468 and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
\naccepted the final report submitted by the CBI on the ground that
\nall the 13 persons including the women, have been made accused in
\nthe mater of residential loan given by the bank. The allegations are
\nof civil nature and that the bank has already filed a suit        for
\nrecovery of the money and thus in view of the circumstances and
\ninsufficient evidence it is not proper to rope in the accused and to
\ncause him mental, physical and financial hardships. The charge
\nsheet in the criminal case was set aside and the petitioner and other
\naccused were discharged.\n<\/p>\n
       Shri Vipin Sinha submits that the government’s contribution
\nto the provident fund was paid by the trustees to the bank. He was
\npaid on the direction of the trustees of the bank the provident fund
\namount of Rs.4,63,398\/- on 25th September, 2007, with reference to
\nthe employee’s own contribution. The gratuity of Rs.3.5 lacs with
\ndelayed interest was also paid on 27th August, 2008. The leave
\n                                 14<\/span><\/p>\n
encashment was, however, not paid as the petitioner is not entitled
\nto pension and other terminal benefits.\n<\/p>\n
       We have gone through the allegations against the petitioner,
\nmaterial relied upon by the bank and the defence taken and the
\nfindings recorded by the enquiry officer.     On the first charge the
\nenquiry officer found that the residential loans were given for
\nconstruction of house of all the plots located in the residential area
\nunder Awas Vikas limits, and that land was being used             for
\nresidential purposes for which infrastructure like water, road and
\nelectricity was available.       The Field Officer had already
\nrecommended for payment of loan installments.           The enquiry
\nofficer, however, found that the arguments of the defence were
\ncontradictory and that the charged officer had released the
\nsubsequent housing loan installment without ensuring the end use
\nof the fund of the previous installment linked to actual progress of
\nthe construction of houses. The charge was thus partly proved.\n<\/p>\n
       In respect of charge No.2 the enquiry officer found that
\nthough 3 year’s ITR as per norms were enclosed with all the
\nhousing loan document in case of Account No.26513, 26652,
\n26552, only one year’s tax deposit challen was enclosed and that
\nfigures incorporated in the income tax return were not evidence to
\nascertain their genuineness. The contention of the officer that the
\nsaving bank account statements were obtained by the charged
\nofficer but they were misplaced while handing over to CBI was not
\naccepted as the documents were duly listed and duly acknowledged
\nby CBI officers. The third charge related to ensuring the margin
\nmoney to be available with the borrowers. It was found that as
\nagainst the terms and conditions of the loan the borrowers did not
\ndeposit any margin money as their stake in the project in respect of
\n10 cases proving charge No.3.\n<\/p>\n
       The charge No.4 related to housing loan of Rs.5 lacs to Shri
\nAlfred David and Smt. Dorthy David          through middleman Shri
\nRavi Srivastava and this charge was not proved as Shri David was
\n                                15<\/span><\/p>\n
not examined. In respect of charge No.5 the enquiry officer did not
\ndispute the defence statement that       initial housing loan was
\nsanctioned to Shri Suresh Kumar for a project situate at 208 EWS,
\nADA Colony, Neem Sarai, Allahbad. Subsequently on the request
\nof the borrower on account of some family dispute the project was
\ntransferred in the name of his wife Smt. Sushma Chaurasia and the
\nloan account was regularised by closing previous housing loan
\naccount.   The enquiry officer did not record any finding whether
\nthe transaction was irregular or the manner in which the loss was
\ncaused to the bank in closing the previous housing loan account by
\ntransferring the project in the name of Smt. Sushma Chaurasia.
\nThere are no finding as to how this transfer of loan account in the
\nname of Shri Suresh Kumar was irregular and against the interest
\nof the bank.\n<\/p>\n
       In respect of allegation on which charge No.6 was based, it
\nwas observed that partnership deed of the firm was executed on
\n4.3.2005, whereas the loan was disbursed on 27.4.2004; equitable
\nmortgage was created on the house as collateral security on
\n12.5.2004. At that time the sanctioning cash credit limit was not in
\nexistence. The charged officer had sanctioned cash credit limit of
\nRs.7.5 lacs on 14.1.2004 to the same unit in which Shri Amit
\nGanguly was proprietor of the firm. The enquiry officer found that
\nthe charged officer had diverted the funds to the other accounts of
\nShir Amit Ganguly and that these amounts were not utilised for the
\nactivity for which the cash credit limit was sanctioned.        The
\ncharged officer had unduly accommodated Shri Amit Ganguly in
\nthe transactions.\n<\/p>\n
       From the aforesaid discussions we find that charge No.1
\nwas partly proved and charge No.4 was not proved by the enquiry
\nofficer.       This leaves charge Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 against the
\npetitioner, to be found proved by the enquiry officer.\n<\/p>\n
       This Court has consistently held in D.S. Bisnoi vs. State
\nBank of India 2004 (1) ESC 381; Sudhir Singh vs. District
\n                                16<\/span><\/p>\n
Cooperative Bank 2003 (1) ESC 465; Ram Pratap Sonekar
\nvs. Allahabad Bank 2000 (2) ESC 814; K.K. Singh vs. Gomti
\nGramin Bank<\/a> 2002 (1) ESC 257,                delivered by Division
\nBenches, relying upon Disciplinary Authority vs. N.B. Patnaik<\/a>
\n1996 (4) SCC 457; State Bank of India vs. T.J. Pant 1999 (4)
\nSCC 759, that the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under
\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal over
\nthe findings recorded by the disciplinary authority of the bank
\nbased upon the enquiry report. Where full opportunity is given to
\nthe employee of the bank to defend himself, the High Court would
\nnot interfere in the findings on technical and flimsy grounds. In
\nDisciplinary Authority vs. N.B. Patnaik<\/a> (supra) the Supreme
\nCourt observed that even if no loss has been caused to the bank, an
\nact beyond the authority of the officer of the bank amounts to
\nmisconduct.\n<\/p>\n
       In Tara Chand Byas vs. Chairman JT 1997 (3) SC 500
\na bank employee was punished for giving loans without adequate
\nsecurity. The Supreme Court upheld the punishment. In State
\nBank of India vs. T.J. Pal (1999) 4 SCC 759 the Supreme Court
\nobserved that proof of actual loss was not necessary for punishing
\na bank employee. In Union of India vs. Vishwa Mohan<\/a> 1998 (4)
\nSCC 310 it was held by the apex court that absolute devotion,
\ndiligence and integrity is required from the employees in the
\nbanking business, otherwise the confidence of the public will be
\nimpaired.\n<\/p>\n
       In Dr. Ram Pal Singh vs. State of UP and others (2006)
\n2 ESC 1182 Allahabad (DB) a Division Bench of this Court
\nheld that the jurisdiction of court in the matters of challenge to the
\nfindings recorded by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary
\nauthority is very limited. The Court cannot sit in appeal over such
\nfindings. It only reviews the manner in which the decision was
\ntaken. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India in such matters is confined to correct errors
\n                                 17<\/span><\/p>\n
of law or procedural matters and violations of principles of natural
\njustice resulting in miscarriage of justice. The judicial review is
\npermissible against the decision making process and not against
\nthe decision itself. A similar view was taken by Division Bench in
\nSarvesh Kumar Sharma vs. Nuclear Power Corporation of
\nIndia Ltd and<\/a> another 2006 (2) ESC 1153.\n<\/p>\n
          In Regional Manager and Disciplinary Authority SBI
\nHyderabad vs. S. Mohad. Gaffar                the Supreme Court<\/a>
\ninterpreted the words ‘gross misconduct’ as against the ‘minor
\nmisconduct’ under the ‘Shashtriya Award’ and ‘Desai Award’
\napplicable to the employees of the bank and held that the
\nexpression ‘gross misconduct’ is not to be viewed or considered as
\nit may appear or appeal to the perception of the court. It has to be
\nconstrued in the context of the definition. If any act is done
\nprejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence involves,
\nor is likely to involve the bank in serious loss and where the
\nemployee of the bank knowingly makes a false statement in any
\ndocument pertaining to or in connection with the employment
\nwith the bank, the findings on such issue would amount to gross
\nmisconduct. The penalty or punishment imposed by the
\ndisciplinary authority or appellate authority will not be treated to
\nbe excessive, shocking conscious of the court, if it is permissible.
\nThe High Court does not normally interfere or substitute its own
\nopinion and impose some other punishment or penalty than the
\npunishment imposed by the bank.\n<\/p>\n
          Similar view was also taken in Union of India and others
\nvs. K.G. Singh<\/a> (2006) 3 ESC 373 (SC) limiting judicial review to
\nthe deficiency in the decision making process and not the decision
\nitself.\n<\/p>\n
          The petitioner was given full and adequate opportunity to
\ndefend himself. He was served with chargesheet with statement of
\nallegation and was given and permitted inspection of all the
\nrelevant documents relied upon by the enquiry officer.            The
\n                                 18<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner appeared        in the enquiry proceedings      and was
\nrepresented by a defence representative of his choice.          The
\npreliminary hearing and regular hearing took place in the presence
\nof the petitioner.    The enquiry officer considered the documents
\nproduced by the department        and the defence    and found the
\nallegation on charge No. 1 to be partly proved and allegation of
\ncharge Nos.2, 3, 5, and 6 to be proved against the petitioner. The
\ncharges proved       against the petitioner related to negligence in
\nperformance of his duties. It cannot be said that the petitioner was
\nnot guilty of the allegations levelled against him or that the
\nallegations were so trivial or inconsequential that the punishment
\nof dismissal of service could not be awarded by the disciplinary
\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n
       We have also taken into consideration the pleas that the
\ncharges were not sufficient to visit the petitioner with punishment
\nof dismissal, close to his superannuation.          The disciplinary
\nauthority was required to consider the effect of long association of
\nthe petitioner as officer with the bank. We, however, cannot
\nsubstitute our opinion on the punishment awarded             by the
\ndisciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority, on
\nthe ground of compassion. The allegations found proved against
\nthe petitioner are not such on which the punishment of dismissal
\ncan be treated to be grossly disproportionate, to         shock the
\nconscience of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
       The writ petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Dt.30.07.2010
\nSP\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court M.N.Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 30 July, 2010 Judgment reserved on 04.05.2010 Judgment delivered on 30.07.2010 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.48264 of 2008 M.N. Verma Vs. Union of India & Ors. Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J. Hon. Kashi Nath Pandey, J. The petitioner was appointed as clerk\/ typist in State […]<\/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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.N.Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 30 July, 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\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.N.Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 30 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-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=\"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-10T10:01:57+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.N.Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 30 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-10T10:01:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5586,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010\",\"name\":\"M.N.Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 30 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-10T10:01:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.N.Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 30 July, 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":"M.N.Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 30 July, 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\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.N.Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 30 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-10T10:01:57+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.N.Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 30 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-10T10:01:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010"},"wordCount":5586,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010","name":"M.N.Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 30 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-10T10:01:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-verma-vs-union-of-india-others-on-30-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.N.Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 30 July, 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\/123407","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=123407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123407\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}