{"id":124847,"date":"2001-11-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-11-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001"},"modified":"2014-01-23T06:29:27","modified_gmt":"2014-01-23T00:59:27","slug":"appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001","title":{"rendered":"Appukuttan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Appukuttan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 (94) FLR 269<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K A Gafoor<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K A Gafoor<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.  <\/p>\n<p> 1. Ext. P1 is the order placing the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner is a<br \/>\nTribal Extension Officer. A case is registered against him under Section 13(1)(c) and (d)<br \/>\nread with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption act and Section 409 and 429 of the<br \/>\nIndian Penal Code i the Vigilance Police Station at Wayanad. The allegation in the<br \/>\ncriminal case is that he, by abusing his official position, misappropriated Government<br \/>\nmoney to the extent of Rs. 98,120\/- meant for the execution work relating to the<br \/>\nconstruction of eleven Adivasi Houses at Thavinhal Panchayat and cheated the<br \/>\nGovernment and poor Adivasi beneficiaries. He also thus enriched himself causing<br \/>\ncorresponding loss to the Government. Government felt that it was not desirable to<br \/>\nallow him to continue in office as he committed a grave offence. It was in the above<br \/>\ncircumstances the Government issued Ext. P1 order of suspension.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. Competence of the government of place him under suspension is not disputed<br \/>\nbefore me as Government is superior to his appointing authority. But assailing<br \/>\nExt. P1, it is submitted that Esxt. P1 order has been passed by the Government in<br \/>\nVigilance Department. He is an employee in Tribal Extension Department. Therefore,<br \/>\nonly the Government i Tribal Extension Department alone can place him under<br \/>\nsuspension. His appointing authority is in that department. As per Rule 10(1) of the<br \/>\nKerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1960, only the<br \/>\nappointing authority or any authority higher than the appointing authority or any authority<br \/>\nempowered by Government in that behalf alone can place him under suspension.<br \/>\nThese are, according to him, his appointing authority in the Tribal Department or any<br \/>\nsuperior authority in the Tribal Department or the Government in Tribal Department.<br \/>\nThe Government in Vigilance Department does not come within that.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. It is further contended that suspension is enabled as per Rule 10 of Kerala Civil<br \/>\nServices (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules. Those rules are framed under<br \/>\nthe proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Secretary in Vigilance<br \/>\nDepartment has passed Ext. P1 order of suspension exercising the powers vested in<br \/>\nhim in terms of Rules of Business issued by the Governor of Kerala under Article 166 of<br \/>\nthe Constitution of India regulating the conduct of the government business. Therefore,<br \/>\nthere is conflict between the two sets of rules issued by the government under<br \/>\nArticle 166 of the Constitution of India and also under the proviso to Article 309 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India. The latter is special Rule governing only Government employees<br \/>\nwhereas the former is the general rule regulating Government business. The latter<br \/>\nshall prevail and therefore, any order os suspension passed by the Government in<br \/>\nVigilance Department is illegal and without authority.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. When the petitioner does not dispute the power of the government to place<br \/>\nhim under suspension, and when the matter is viewed in that angle, there arise no<br \/>\nconflict between the rules. First of all, Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1960 though issued initially in terms of the proviso under Article 309,<br \/>\nconsequent on enactment of Public Services Act, 1968 that rule has to be deemed as<br \/>\nthe rules framed under that Act as per the provisions in Section 3 thereof. As held in Danie<br \/>\nv. Board of Revenue (ILR 1975 (1) Kerala) the legal fiction embodied in Section 3 of the<br \/>\nAct enables the Act to be treated as having been in force when the Kerala Civil<br \/>\nServices (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules were promulgated under the<br \/>\nproviso to Article 309. The Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals)<br \/>\nRule, 1960 becomes the statutory rules framed under the Kerala Public Services Act.<br \/>\nThe rules framed under that statute are the general rules governing the service<br \/>\nconditions of all the Government employees in the State; whereas the rules framed by<br \/>\nthe Governor under Article 166 relating to the conduct of Government business become<br \/>\nmore special in nature. Even if there is thus nay conflict, the rules framed under<br \/>\nArticle 166 shall therefore prevail.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. Really, there is no conflict at all. Admittedly by the petitioner, the Government<br \/>\nis duly empowered to place him under suspension. There is only one Government in<br \/>\nthe State, Government of Kerala. The conduct of Government business of a State,<br \/>\nthereby meaning of executive action of the Government of a State, shall be expressed<br \/>\nto be taken in the name of the governor going by Article 166 of the Constitution of India.<br \/>\nSuch orders shall be authenticated in the manner as may be specified in the rules to be<br \/>\nmade by the governor. The Rules of Business of a Government are the rules so<br \/>\nframed. Those rules are as Article 166(3) provides meant &#8220;for the more convenient<br \/>\ntransaction of the business of the Government of the State&#8221;. The rules enable different<br \/>\ndepartments in Government to function in a co-ordinated manner. Whether it is in<br \/>\ndepartment A or B function is discharged by the Government, so whether it is<br \/>\nGovernment in Vigilance Department or Government in Tribal Extension Department,<br \/>\nit is Government. Petitioner has been placed under suspension by the Government as<br \/>\nper Ext. P1. When that is an executive action expressed to be taken in the name of<br \/>\nthe Governor as provided in Article 166(1) and is authenticate in terms of Article 116(2) in<br \/>\nterms of the Rules of Business framed by Governor of Kerala, that can be termed<br \/>\nonly as the executive action of the Government. Rules of business enable the Secretary<br \/>\nin Vigilance Department in Government to discharge the function of the Government<br \/>\nto place an officer under suspension when a Vigilance case is pending against him,<br \/>\nirrespective whether he belongs to one or the other different department of the<br \/>\nGovernment. So the Government the superior authority to the appointing authority<br \/>\nreferred to in Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals)<br \/>\nRules, 1960 is the government of Kerala. Viewed in that angle, there arise no conflict<br \/>\nbetween the rules enacted under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India or<br \/>\nthe rules deemed to be the rules issued under the Kerala Public Services Act on the<br \/>\none hand or the rules framed by the Governor under Article 166(3) of the Constitution of<br \/>\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. It has been held by this Court in Nithyananthan v. State of Kerala (1995 (2)<br \/>\nKLT 250) cited by the petitioner that<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;&#8230;..the rule of business evidenced by Ext. R(a) is not in conflict with any other statute or<br \/>\nstatutory rules&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p> Moreover, this aspect is covered by a decision rendered by myself reported in<br \/>\nVelayudhan v. state of Kerala (1996 (2) KLT 502). That was in respect of an<br \/>\nincumbent working in Civil Supplies Department, who had been placed under suspension<br \/>\npending investigation of a vigilance case by the Government in Vigilance Department.<br \/>\nThe Contention therein also as quoted in para 2 of the report was that:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;The Vigilance Department is not empowered duly to place on suspension employees of<br \/>\nother department like the petitioner who are employees of Civil Supplies Department.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> The contention now advanced is almost similar, except with regard to the conflict<br \/>\nof rules which has been considered hereinabove. Considering this aspect, I have<br \/>\ntaken the view that:\n<\/p>\n<p>  The petitioners&#8217; contention that only the Government in Civil Supplies Department alone<br \/>\ncan place them under suspension is not correct. The Secretary to Government, Civil Supplies<br \/>\nDepartment can authenticate an order of Government only in accordance with the provisions<br \/>\nunder Article 166 and the Rule made thereunder. Then alone it will become a Government Order.<br \/>\nThe Rules of Business provide the manner of issuing an order by Government and its<br \/>\nauthentication by the Secretaries. As per the Gazette Notification dated 23.4.1994 notifying G.O.<br \/>\n(MS) No. 169\/94\/GAD dated 23.4.1994 published in SRO.No. 482\/94 the Rules Business of<br \/>\nGovernment of Kerala had been amended. The counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy<br \/>\nof the said notification for my perusal. As per the said amendment, orders sanctioning<br \/>\nprosecution of a public servant under the Code of Criminal Procedure or Prevention of Corruption<br \/>\nAct, placing them under suspension and finalising the disciplinary proceedings against him<br \/>\nunder the relevant rules and orders in pursuance of a Vigilance Enquiry contemplated or initiated<br \/>\ncan be issued by Government in Vigilance Secretary has authenticated Ext. P1 Government Order.<br \/>\nThat is perfectly within his competence in terms of the said amendment to the Rules of Business<br \/>\nof Government of Kerala. It is not an executive order but a statutory Rule indicating the conduct<br \/>\nof Government business as provided under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. It will not run<br \/>\ncontrary to Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Rule 10<br \/>\nonly mentions about Government or higher authority than the appointing authority who is also<br \/>\nGovernment. The conduct of Government business is regulated by the said amendment.<br \/>\nTherefore, the contention of the petitioners that &#8220;the issuance of an executive order, assuming<br \/>\nwithout conceding that any order has been issued, will not do duty for the empowerment<br \/>\nspecifically mentioned under Rule 10&#8243; does not hold good&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus as per Ext. P1 herein the Secretary to the Vigilance Department had passed the<br \/>\norder of the Government of Kerala. The Secretary was only authenticating the order<br \/>\nin the manner provided in Article 166(2). The other decisions relied on the petitioner<br \/>\ndoes not have nay relevance on the issue at all.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. The petitioner has not demonstrated any instance of discrimination, though<br \/>\nalleged. Moreover suspension is always based on the fact situation relevant to each<br \/>\ncase. Merely because, some other persons involved in a case is not placed under<br \/>\nsuspension, the petitioner cannot plead discrimination when suspension in his case is<br \/>\njustified. The petitioner is involved in misappropriation of huge amount. Charges<br \/>\nunder the Prevention of Corruption Act are also alleged. Hence, his suspension cannot<br \/>\nbe stated to be unjustified.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. Reading of Ext. P1 clearly shows that government has applied its mind to the<br \/>\nfact situation, before passing it. So, it cannot be contended that Ext. P1 was issued in<br \/>\na mechanical manner. Considering the seriousness and gravity of the allegations, if<br \/>\nthe Government feels it necessary in public interest to place him under suspension,<br \/>\nsuch view cannot be stated to be faulty to invite interference. The Supreme Court in<br \/>\nState of Orissa v. Bima Kumar Mohanthy (1994 (4) SCC 126) held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee<br \/>\nto discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words ti is to refrain him to avail<br \/>\nfurther opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the<br \/>\nmembers of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employees could<br \/>\nget away even pending enquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to<br \/>\ndelinquent officer to settle the enquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the<br \/>\ndelinquent having had an opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or<br \/>\nenquiry etc&#8230;.&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. Thus on any count there is no reason for interference. Original Petition fails;<br \/>\ndismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Appukuttan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 (94) FLR 269 Author: K A Gafoor Bench: K A Gafoor JUDGMENT K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. Ext. P1 is the order placing the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner is a Tribal Extension Officer. A case is registered against [&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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124847","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Appukuttan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2001 - 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\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Appukuttan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-23T00:59:27+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\\\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Appukuttan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-23T00:59:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001\"},\"wordCount\":1844,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001\",\"name\":\"Appukuttan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-23T00:59:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Appukuttan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Appukuttan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2001 - 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\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Appukuttan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-23T00:59:27+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\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Appukuttan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2001","datePublished":"2001-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-23T00:59:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001"},"wordCount":1844,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001","name":"Appukuttan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-23T00:59:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-nair-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-november-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Appukuttan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2001"}]},{"@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\/124847","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=124847"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124847\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124847"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124847"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124847"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}