{"id":134883,"date":"1969-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969"},"modified":"2017-10-10T07:07:29","modified_gmt":"2017-10-10T01:37:29","slug":"a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969","title":{"rendered":"A. K. K. Nambiar vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 October, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
A. K. K. Nambiar vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 October, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 652, \t\t 1970 SCR (3) 121<\/div>\n
Author: A Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C., Shelat, J.M., Vaidyialingam, C.A., Hegde, K.S., Ray, A.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nA.   K. K. NAMBIAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n28\/10\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N.\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N.\nSHAH, J.C.\nSHELAT, J.M.\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nHEGDE, K.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR  652\t\t  1970 SCR  (3) 121\n 1969 SCC  (3) 864\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1974 SC1957\t (12)\n RF\t    1991 SC1557\t (21)\n\n\nACT:\nAll India Service (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1955-Rule  7-\nOrder  of  suspension  of  officer  charged  with   criminal\noffence--Order is under P.    7(3)  and\t not  R.   7(1)-Mala\nfides--Proof of--Affidavits, verification of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant was appointed to the Indian Police Service  in\n1935.  in November 1956 he was posted in Andhra\t Pradesh  as\nInspector-General of Police and in August 1967 he was posted\nas  Special  Inspector-General\tof Police  for\trevision  of\nPolice Standing Orders.\t In that year the Chief Minister  of\nAndhra\tPradesh\t ordered  the Chief  Secretary\tto  make  an\nenquiry\t with  regard  to certain  allegations\tagainst\t the\nappellant.  The Chief Secretary recommended that the  matter\nbe  referred to the Vigilance Commissioner who advised\tthat\nthe  matter  be\t investigated  by  the\tCentral\t Bureau\t  of\nInvestigation.\tThereafter the said Bureau made an  enquiry,\nconsidered  the appellant's explanations and made a  report.\nIn  July  1968\tthe Government of India,  Ministry  of\tHome\nAffairs\t  placed  the  appellant  under\t  suspension.\t The\nappellant  filed a writ petition in the High Court at  Delhi\nand  failing  there  filed an appeal  in  this\tCourt.\t The\nappellant's contentions that fell for consideration were (i)\nthat  under  sub-r.  (1) of R. 7 of the\t All  India  Service\n(Appeal and Discipline) Rules, 1955 the order of  suspension\ncould be made only if disciplinary proceeding was  initiated\nand  the  Government was satisfied that there should  be  an\norder;\tin the present case the order did not  satisfy\tthis\ncondition  and\twas  therefore\tbad;  (ii)  that  the  Chief\nMinister  of  Andhra  Pradesh was hostile  to  him  and\t the\ninvestigation  by  the Central Bureau of  Investigation\t was\nconducted  by persons hostile to- him; the Ministry of\tHome\nAffairs\t should\t not  have relied on the  report  since\t the\nenquiry was initiated and conducted mala-fide.\nHELD, : (i) The order in question had no reference to sub-r.\n(1)  of\t R. 7, but was an order under R. 7(3)  which  states\nthat  a member of the service in respect of or against\twhom\nan  investigation  inquiry or trial is pending may,  at\t the\ndiscretion  of the Government under which he is\t serving  be\nplaced\tunder  suspension  until  the  termination  of\t all\nproceedings  relating  to  the charge.\t The  appellant,  as\nappeared from the First Information Report against him stood\ncharged\t with offences, under the Prevention  of  Corruption\nAct  and the time of occurrence was the period 1960 to\t967.\nThere  was  an\tinvestigation and  the\ttrial  was  awaiting\nrelating to the criminal charge against the appellant.\t The\norder  of  suspension had to be read in the context  of\t the\nentire\tcase  and the combination  of  circumstances.\tThis\norder indicated that-the Government applied its mind to\t the\nallegations,  the  enquiries and the  circumstances  of\t the\ncase.\tThe  appellant\thad failed  to\testablish  that\t the\nGovernment acted mala fide.  There was no allegation against\nany  particular\t officer of the Government  of\tIndia  about\nbeing  mala fide.  The order of suspension, thus made  under\nsub-r.\t(3) did not suffer from any vice of infringement  of\nR. 7(1). [124 D-125 B]\n(ii)The\t affidavits  of\t the parties  in  the  present\tcase\nsuffered from the mischief of lack of verification with\t the\nresult that the affidavits should\nC.I.\/70-9\n122\nnot   be   admissible  in  evidence.   The   importance\t  of\nverification is to test the genuineness and authenticity  of\nallegations  and also to make the deponent  responsible\t for\nallegations.  in essence verification is required to  enable\nthe  court to find out as to whether it will be safe to\t act\non such affidavit evidence. [125 C-E]\nThe  affidavit\tevidence assumed importance in\tthe  present\ncase because of allegations of mala fide acts on the part of\nthe  respondents.  The appellant did not name any person  of\nthe  Union  of India who acted in that manner  and  did\t not\nimplied the Chief Minister as a party.\tIn order to  succeed\non  the\t proof\tof mala fides in relation to  the  order  of\nsuspension, the appellant had to prove either that the order\nof suspension was made mala fide or that the order was\tmade\nfor collateral purposes.  The appellant had neither  alleged\nnor established either of these features. [125 F-G]\nThe  allegation of mala fide against the Central  Bureau  of\nInvestigation  did not arise for consideration because\twhat\nwas  in\t question  was\tnot its\t report\t but  the  order  of\nsuspension  which  satisfied  R.  7(3)\tand  was  in  honest\nexercise of powers. [125 H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1406 of 1969.
\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated April 17, 1969  of
\nthe Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 611 of 1968.
\nThe appellant appeared in person.\n<\/p>\n
Jagadish  Swarup, Solicitor-General, R. L. Mehta and  R.  N.
\nSachthey, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRay, J.-This appeal by certificate from the judgment of\t the
\nHigh  Court  at Delhi challenges the order dated  5th  July,
\n1968 placing the appellant under suspension.
\nThe appellant canvassed two grounds : first, that the  order
\nof  suspension was passed on -a report which was  made\tmala
\nfide,  and,  therefore,\t the order of  suspension  was\tbad;
\nsecondly,  the order of suspension was made  under  sub-rule
\n(1)  of\t Rule  7  of  the  All-India  Service  (Appeal\t and
\nDiscipline)  Rules,  1955, and is, therefore, liable  to  be
\nquashed.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant was appointed to the Indian Police Service  in
\nthe year 1935.\tHe was posted as Inspector General of Police
\nof the State of Andhra Pradesh, on 1 November, 1956.  He was
\n,confirmed as Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh in
\nthe  year 1957.\t On 14 May, 1966, he reached the age  of  55
\nyears.\t‘He, however, continued to work as Inspector General
\nof Police, Andhra Pradesh up to 1 August, 1967.\t He was then
\nposted\tas  Special  Inspector General\tof  Police  for\t the
\nrevision of Police Standing Orders.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    123<\/span><\/p>\n
Some  time  in the year 1967 the Chief\tMinister  of  Andhra
\nPradesh\t ordered  that the Chief -Secretary should  make  an
\nenquiry\t with  regard  to certain  allegations\tagainst\t the
\nappellant.    The  Chief  Secretary  recommended  that\t the
\nVigilance Commissioner in the State of Andhra Pradesh  might
\nbe  requested  to  look\t into  the  matter.   The  Vigilance
\nCommissioner advised that the enquiry should be conducted by
\nan   independent   agency  like\t the   Central\t Bureau\t  of
\nInvestigation.\t  The\tCentral\t Bureau\t  of   Investigation
\nthereafter  made  an  enquiry.\t The  appellant\t was   given
\nallegations to answer.\tThe appellant submitted\t explanation
\nand was examined.  The Central Bureau of Investigation\tmade
\na report on the enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
On 1 1 July., 1968 the Government of India, Ministry of Home
\nAffairs\t  made\t an  order  placing  the   appellant   under
\nsuspension.   The appellant alleged as follows.\t  The  Chief
\nMinister  of  the State of Andhra Pradesh was  inimical\t and
\nhostile\t to  the  appellant since the time  of\tthe  General
\nElections  in  the  year 1967.\t The  investigation  by\t the
\nCentral Bureau of Investigation was conducted by persons who
\nwere  hostile  to  the\tappellant.   The  Ministry  of\tHome
\nAffairs’ Government of India, should not have relied on\t the
\nreport because the initiation and the conduct of the enquiry
\nwere  motivated mala fide on the part of the Chief  Minister
\nof the State and other persons.\n<\/p>\n
The  other contention of the appellant was that\t under\tsub-
\nrule  (1)  of Rule 7 of the All-India  Service\t(Appeal\t and
\nDiscipline)  Rules,  1955 the order of suspension  could  be
\nmade  only if disciplinary proceeding was initiated and\t the
\nGovernment  was satisfied that there should be an order\t and
\nin the present case the order did not satisfy the provisions
\nof the rule, and therefore, the order is bad.
\nThe pre-eminent question in this appeal is whether the order
\nof  suspension\tis  in infraction of Rule 7. Rule  7  is  as
\nfollows
\n\t      “(1)  If\thaving regard to the nature  of\t the
\n\t      charges and the circumstances in any case\t the
\n\t      Government  which initiates  any\tdisciplinary
\n\t      proceeding  is satisfied that it is  necessary
\n\t      or  desirable  to place under  suspension\t the
\n\t      member  of  the  Service\tagainst\t whom\tsuch
\n\t      proceedings are started that Government may-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   if the member of the Service is  serving
\n\t      under it pass an\t   order  placing him  under
\n\t      suspension, or\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   if the member of the Service is  serving
\n\t      another Government, request that Government to
\n\t      place   him  under  suspension,  pending\t the
\n\t      conclusion  of the inquiry and the passing  of
\n\t      the final order in the case
\n\t      124<\/span>
\n\t      Provided\tthat  in  cases\t where\tthere  is  a
\n\t      difference   of  opinion\tbetween\t two   State
\n\t      Governments  the matter shall be\treferred  to
\n\t      the Central Government whose decision  thereon
\n\t      shall be final.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)…………………………\n<\/p>\n
\t      (3)   A member of the Service in respect of or
\n\t      against  whom,  an investigation,\t inquiry  or
\n\t      trial relating to a criminal charge is pending
\n\t      may, at the discretion of the Government under
\n\t      which   he   is  serving,\t be   placed   under
\n\t      suspension   until  the  termination  of\t all
\n\t      proceedings  relating to that charge,  if\t the
\n\t      charge  is  connected with his position  as  a
\n\t      Government  servant or is likely to  embarrass
\n\t      him in the discharge of his duties or involves
\n\t      moral turpitude”.\n<\/p>\n
Rule   7   sub-rule   (1)   contemplates   suspension\twhen
\ndisciplinary  proceeding is initiated and the Government  is
\nsatisfied  that\t it is necessary to place a  member  of\t the
\nService under suspension.  It was contended by the appellant
\nthat the order of suspension was made under sub-rule (1)  in
\nthe present case without any disciplinary proceedings.\t The
\norder does not have any reference to sub-rule (1) of Rule 7.
\nThe order recites first that there are’ serious\t allegations
\nof   corruption\t and  malpractice  against  the\t  appellant,
\nsecondly  that\tthe enquiry made by the\t Central  Government
\nrevealed  that there is a prima facie case and thirdly\tthat
\nthe  Government\t of India after\t considering  the  available
\nmaterial and having regard to the nature of the\t allegations
\nagainst\t the  appellant, the circumstances of  the  case  is
\nsatisfied  that it is necessary and desirable to  place\t the
\nappellant under suspension.\n<\/p>\n
At the hearing of the appeal Mr. Solicitor General  produced
\nthe  correct copy of the First Information Report  dated  17
\nAugust,\t 1967  under  section 154 of the  Code\tof  Criminal
\nProcedure.   It\t will  appear  from  the  report  that\t the
\nappellant was charged with offences under the Prevention  of
\nCorruption  Act,  1947 and the time of\toccurrence  was\t the
\nperiod 1960 to 1967.\n<\/p>\n
Sub-rule  (3) of Rule 7 states that a member of the  Service
\nin respect of, or against whom, an investigation, inquiry or
\ntrial  relating to a criminal charge is pending may, at\t the
\ndiscretion  of the Government under which he is serving,  be
\nplaced\tunder  suspension  until  the  termination  of\t all
\nproceedings   relating\tto  that  charge.    The   appellant
\ncontended  that the- appellant was not suspended under\tsub-
\nrule (3) of Rule 7. That is a contention The facts are\tthat
\nthere  was  an\tinvestigation  and  the\t trial\tis  awaiting
\nrelating  to a criminal charge against the  appellant.\t The
\norder  of  suspension has to be read in the context  of\t the
\nentire case and
\n1 2 5
\ncombination of circumstances.  This order indicates that the
\nGovernment   applied  its  mind\t to  the  allegations,\t the
\nenquiries and ;the circumstances of the case.  The appellant
\nhas failed to establish that the Government acted mala fide.
\nThere is no allegation against any particular officer of the
\nGovernment  of India about acting mala fide.  The  order  or
\nsuspension  was made under subrule (3) and does\t not  suffer
\nfrom any vice of infringement of Rule 7.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant made allegations against the Chief Minister of
\nAndhra\tPradesh and other persons some of whose\t names\twere
\ndisclosed  and\tsome  of whose\tnames  were  not  disclosed.
\nNeither\t the Chief Minister nor any other person was made  a
\nparty.\t The appellant filed an affidavit in support of\t the
\npetition.   Neither  the  petition  nor\t the  affidavit\t was
\nverified.  The affidavits which were filed in answer to\t the
\nappellant’s petition were also not verified.  The reason for
\nverification  of affidavits are to enable the Court to\tfind
\nout  which facts can be said to be proved on  the  affidavit
\nevidence  of,  rival parties.  Allegations may\tbe  true  to
\nknowledge or allegations may be true to information received
\nfrom  persons or allegations may be based on  records.\t The
\nimportance  of verification is to test the  genuineness\t and
\nauthenticity  of allegations and also to make  the  deponent
\nresponsible  for  allegations.\tIn essence  verification  is
\nrequired  to enable the Court to find out as to whether\t ‘it
\nwill  be  safe to act on such affidavit\t evidence.   In\t the
\npresent case, the affidavits of all the parties suffer\tfrom
\nthe mischief of lack of proper verification with the  result
\nthat the affidavits should not be admissible in evidence.
\nThe  affidavit\tevidence assumes importance in\tthe  present
\ncase because of allegations of mala fide acts on the part of
\nthe  respondents.  The appellant alleged that the  Union  of
\nIndia  made the order of suspension because of the  pressure
\nof  the Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh.\t The
\nappellant, however, did not name any person of the Union  of
\nIndia who acted in that manner and did not implied the Chief
\nMinister  as a party.  In order to succeed on the  proof  of
\nmala  fides  in\t relation to the order\tof  suspension,\t the
\nappellant  has to prove either that the order of  suspension
\nwas made mala fide or that the order was made for collateral
\npurposes.   In\tthe  present  case,  the  appellant  neither
\nalleged nor established either of these features.
\nThe  appellant\tcontended  that the report  of\tthe  Central
\nBureau\tof Investigation was made mala fide.  The  appellant
\nappeared  before the investigation authorities.\t We ate\t not
\nconcerned  with\t the correctness and the  propriety  of\t the
\nreport.\t  We  have  only to examine  whether  the  order  of
\nsuspension was warranted by the rule and also whether it was
\nin  honest  exercise  of powers.  The  order  of  suspension
\nsatisfied both the tests in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
126<\/span><\/p>\n
In view of the fact that the criminal case is pending, it is
\ndesirable  not\tto  express any opinion on  the\t merits\t and
\ndemerits of the charges as also the rival contentions of the
\nparties because such an opinion may cause prejudice.
\nThe  appellant\traised a contention as to the vires  of\t the
\nDelhi  Special\tPolice\tEstablishment  Act,  1946  and\t the
\nvalidity  of  the investigation.  In view of the  fact\tthat
\nsanction   for\tthe  trial  is\tpending\t pursuant   to\t the
\ninvestigation  under the First Information Report  dated  17
\nAugust,\t 1967 the appellant did not want a decision on\tthis
\npoint in this appeal because the appellant would raise\tthat
\ncontention  in the criminal case.  We have, therefore,\tleft
\nopen   the  contention\tas  to\tthe  Delhi  Special   Police
\nEstablishment  Act, 1946 to enable the appellant to  agitate
\nthat contention, if so advised, in the criminal trial.
\nThe  appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.\t In view  of
\nthe  fact  that there was no order as to costs in  the\tHigh
\nCourt,\twe  are of opinion that each party should  bear\t its
\ncosts in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t       Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    127<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India A. K. K. Nambiar vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 October, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 652, 1970 SCR (3) 121 Author: A Ray Bench: Shah, J.C., Shelat, J.M., Vaidyialingam, C.A., Hegde, K.S., Ray, A.N. PETITIONER: A. K. K. NAMBIAR Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANR. DATE OF […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-134883","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nA. K. K. Nambiar vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 October, 1969 - 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\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A. K. K. Nambiar vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969\" \/>\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=\"1969-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-10T01:37:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A. K. K. Nambiar vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 October, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-10T01:37:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969\"},\"wordCount\":1737,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969\",\"name\":\"A. K. K. Nambiar vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-10T01:37:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A. K. K. Nambiar vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 October, 1969\"}]},{\"@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":"A. K. K. Nambiar vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 October, 1969 - 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\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A. K. K. Nambiar vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-10T01:37:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A. K. K. Nambiar vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 October, 1969","datePublished":"1969-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-10T01:37:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969"},"wordCount":1737,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969","name":"A. K. K. Nambiar vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-10T01:37:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-k-nambiar-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-october-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A. K. K. Nambiar vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 October, 1969"}]},{"@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\/134883","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=134883"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134883\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134883"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134883"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134883"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}