{"id":135452,"date":"2004-09-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004"},"modified":"2015-10-13T20:12:17","modified_gmt":"2015-10-13T14:42:17","slug":"the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004","title":{"rendered":"The General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 28 September, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 28 September, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\n\nDATED:28\/9\/2004.  \n\n\nCORAM   \n\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ            \n\n\nWRIT PETITION No.18832 OF 1996    \n\n\n\nThe General Manager  \nSwadeshi Cotton Mills,\nPondicherry.                                            ... Petitioner\n\n\n-Vs-\n\n\n1.  The Presiding Officer,\n   Labour Court,\n   Pondicherry.\n\n\n2. S.Dhandapani                                 ... Respondents\n\n\n        Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for the relief as stated therein.\n\n\nFor petitioner :  Mr.Karthic for\n                   M\/s.T.S.Gopalan &amp; Co.\n\n\n^For R.2        :  Mr.A.Sasidharan\n\n\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n<p>        The above Writ Petition has  been  filed  under  Article  226  of  the<br \/>\nConstitution  of  India  praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the<br \/>\nrecords of the first respondent in I.D.No.12 of 1990,  dated  28.7.1  995  and<br \/>\nquash the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   On  a  perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing<br \/>\nthe learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that the second  respondent<br \/>\nwas an   Electrician  with  the  petitioner  Management.    The  case  of  the<br \/>\npetitioner\/Management is that on 27.10.1988 at about  1.10  a.m.,  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent\/workman  came  in  a  cycle and committed theft of two copper coils<br \/>\nkept near the compound wall and when he was attempting to move his cycle  with<br \/>\nthe copper coils, he was apprehended by the Security Guard and when questioned<br \/>\nby the  security  personnel,  he  admitted  the  guilt.    On such charge, the<br \/>\npetitioner\/Management has not only initiated departmental proceedings  against<br \/>\nthe second respondent\/workman but has also lodged a criminal complaint against<br \/>\nhim.  Thereupon,  the  petitioner  Management has issued a charge memo.  dated<br \/>\n28.10 .1988 thereby alleging misconduct of theft, fraud  and  committing  acts<br \/>\npunishable  under  the law of the land and after investigation in the criminal<br \/>\ncase, a charge sheet was also filed before the Court of  I  Class  Magistrate,<br \/>\nPondicherry in C.C.No.1989.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   It  further  comes  to  be  known that thereafter, the Management<br \/>\nconducted a departmental enquiry and having held that the charges were  proved<br \/>\nagainst  him,  the  second  respondent  was  dismissed  from  service  by  the<br \/>\npetitioner Management by their order  dated  24.5.1989.    In  the  Industrial<br \/>\nDispute  raised  by the second respondent\/workman challenging his dismissal by<br \/>\nthe Management, the Labour Court  has  ordered  reinstatement  of  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent in  the  petitioner  Mill.    It  is  only aggrieved against such a<br \/>\nfinding of the Labour Court, the petitioner Management  has  come  forward  to<br \/>\nfile the above writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   A  careful  perusal of the Award passed by the Labour Court would<br \/>\nshow that the Labour  Court  has  proceeded  on  the  basis  that  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent  was acquitted in the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.66 of 1989 and<br \/>\nheld that in such circumstances, the petitioner has no power  to  dismiss  the<br \/>\nsecond  respondent for the same alleged misconduct since it amounts to &#8216;double<br \/>\njeopardy&#8217; for the single act alleged to have been committed on the part of the<br \/>\nsecond respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  The learned counsel for the petitioner would  Pooh-pooh  the  said<br \/>\nfinding  of the Labour Court on ground that it is a well established principle<br \/>\nof law that for the same misconduct, the employee can be taken  to  task  both<br \/>\nunder  the criminal law and also under the departmental proceedings and it can<br \/>\nnever be treated as a double jeopardy since they both are  two  different  and<br \/>\ndistinct  proceedings and the standard of proof in departmental enquiry is not<br \/>\nthe same as in criminal trial and would cite two judgments of  the  Honourable<br \/>\nApex  Court, the first one delivered in <a href=\"\/doc\/157335\/\">SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,<br \/>\nPATHANAMTHITTA AND OTHERS vs.  A.GOPALAN<\/a> reported in (1997) 11 SCC 239 and the<br \/>\nother one in GOVIND DAS vs.  STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in (1997 )  11<br \/>\nSCC 361.    In  both  the  above  judgments,  the Honourable Apex Court, in no<br \/>\nuncertain terms, has held:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The acquittal of the appellant in the criminal proceedings is  based  on  the<br \/>\nview that  the  charges  were  not  proved beyond reasonable doubt.  Since the<br \/>\nstandard of proof required to prove a charge  of  misconduct  in  departmental<br \/>\nproceedings  is  not the same as that required to prove a criminal charge, the<br \/>\nacquittal of the appellant in the criminal case could not be  made  the  basis<br \/>\nfor  setting  aside the order for termination of the services of the appellant<br \/>\npassed in the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of evidence adduced in the<br \/>\ndepartmental inquiry conducted in the charges levelled against the appellant.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  Regarding the merits of the case,  the  learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\npetitioner would submit that since the offence is one of theft, the Management<br \/>\nis  justified  in  awarding the punishment of dismissal from service and would<br \/>\ncite two judgments of this Court, the first one delivered  in  <a href=\"\/doc\/213905\/\">T.SEERALAN  vs.<br \/>\nTHE  PRESIDING  OFFICER,  II  ADDITIONAL  LABOUR  COURT AND OTHERS<\/a> reported in<br \/>\n1985(II) LLJ 85 and the other one delivered in <a href=\"\/doc\/237413\/\">S.ANTHONISAMY  vs.    PRESIDING<br \/>\nOFFICER,  LABOUR  COURT, PONDICHERRY AND ANOTHER<\/a> reported in 2003 (4) LLN 922.<br \/>\nIn both these cases, the learned Judges of this Court have upheld the decision<br \/>\nof the Management in dismissing the workmen  therein  for  theft,  which  were<br \/>\nconsidered as  serious misconduct.  On such arguments, the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioner would pray to set aside the Award of the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  On the other hand, on the part of the  second  respondent\/workman,<br \/>\nthe  learned counsel while backing the Award passed by the Labour Court as one<br \/>\npassed after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case<br \/>\nand the law covering the subject and would  cite  a  judgment  of  this  Court<br \/>\ndelivered in  S.RANGASAMY  vs.  VELLANDIVALASAI INDUSTRIAL WEAVERS COOPERATIVE<br \/>\nPRODUCTION AND SALES SOCIETY LTD.,  SALEM  DISTRICT  AND  OTHERS  reported  in<br \/>\n1992-1-LLN  1028 wherein a learned single Judge of this Court, way-back in the<br \/>\nyear 1991, while considering the point &#8216;whether in the face  of  acquittal  in<br \/>\ncriminal  case,  the  petitioner-employee  was entitled to reinstatement&#8217;, has<br \/>\nheld that &#8216; while Courts admit that acquittal in criminal charge may not be  a<br \/>\nbar  to  departmental proceeding, it will be of significance and importance in<br \/>\ndepartmental proceeding and go a long way to show the innocence  of  employee&#8217;<br \/>\nand in the facts of the case, has remitted the matter to the Labour Court with<br \/>\na  direction  to  give  weight  to  the  findings of the Sessions Court in the<br \/>\ncriminal appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  Citing the above judgment of the  learned  single  Judge  of  this<br \/>\nCourt  and further submitting that the Labour Court has appreciated the entire<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances of the case in the manner required under law  and  has<br \/>\ncorrectly  arrived  at  the  decision  to  order  reinstatement  of the second<br \/>\nrespondent, the learned counsel  for  the  second  respondent  would  pray  to<br \/>\ndismiss the above writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  As pointed out on the part of the petitioner, the Labour Court has<br \/>\nproceeded  on  the  basis  of  the acquittal judgment rendered in the criminal<br \/>\nproceedings further holding that it is nothing but a double jeopardy.  The law<br \/>\nis well settled to the effect that both the departmental proceedings  and  the<br \/>\ncriminal  proceedings  are two independent parallel proceedings which could be<br \/>\ninitiated against an erring employee and neither of  the  decisions  would  be<br \/>\nbinding on  the other.  When such is the well settled position of law now, the<br \/>\nLabour Court has gone upto the extent of remarking that the proceeding against<br \/>\nthe employee under both the laws as of double jeopardy, which is nothing but a<br \/>\nsurmise or an illusion.  In view of the latest judicial thinking, as  held  by<br \/>\nthe  Honourable Apex Court in the judgments cited supra and in very many other<br \/>\njudgments, the view held by the learned single Judge  of  this  Court  in  the<br \/>\njudgment  cited  on the part of the second respondent is held no longer a good<br \/>\nlaw and would not become applicable in the case in hand.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  For the foregoing  reasons  assigned,  the  above  Writ  Petition<br \/>\nthough  succeeds,  paving  way for setting aside the order of the Labour court<br \/>\nbelow, still, in the considered opinion of this Court since the  Labour  Court<br \/>\nhas  been  under  miserable  misconception of the legal position regarding the<br \/>\nbearing of a decision of a criminal court on the domestic proceeding and being<br \/>\ninfluenced by such thought occupied in its  mind,  the  Labour  Judge  without<br \/>\ngiving  vent  to  the  standard  of  proof  and  the  requirement  for a valid<br \/>\nconclusion to be arrived at  in  the  matter  concerned  with  a  departmental<br \/>\nproceeding,  has  arrived  at  a  wrong  conclusion  based  on such perception<br \/>\nregarding  the  legality  which  is  erroneous  and   therefore   with   these<br \/>\nclarifications,  it  is  only proper for setting aside the award passed by the<br \/>\nLabour Court, to order a fresh enquiry to be held with sufficient  opportunity<br \/>\nfor  both  parties  to  be  heard  and  to deliver a judgment on merits and in<br \/>\naccordance with law in a time bound manner and hence the following order:\n<\/p>\n<p>In result,\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) the above Writ Petition stands allowed in part;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)the Award dated 28.7.1995 made in I.D.No.12 of 1990 by the  Labour  Court,<br \/>\nPondicherry is quashed;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)  the subject matter is remitted back to the Labour Court, Pondicherry to<br \/>\nconduct a fresh enquiry with sufficient opportunity for  both  parties  to  be<br \/>\nheard  and  to  deliver a judgment on merits and in accordance with law in the<br \/>\nmanner aforementioned within six months from the date of receipt of a copy  of<br \/>\nthis order;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iv)  till  such  time,  the  status that is prevalent as on date shall not be<br \/>\ndisturbed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order  as<br \/>\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<br \/>\nRao <\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Labour Court,<br \/>\nPondicherry.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 28 September, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:28\/9\/2004. CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ WRIT PETITION No.18832 OF 1996 The General Manager Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Pondicherry. &#8230; Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Pondicherry. 2. S.Dhandapani &#8230; Respondents Writ [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-135452","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 28 September, 2004 - 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\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 28 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-13T14:42:17+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 28 September, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-13T14:42:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1508,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004\",\"name\":\"The General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 28 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-13T14:42:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 28 September, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"The General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 28 September, 2004 - 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\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 28 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-13T14:42:17+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 28 September, 2004","datePublished":"2004-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-13T14:42:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004"},"wordCount":1508,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004","name":"The General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 28 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-13T14:42:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-28-september-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 28 September, 2004"}]},{"@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\/135452","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=135452"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135452\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=135452"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=135452"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=135452"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}