{"id":14627,"date":"2010-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-22T18:38:57","modified_gmt":"2018-09-22T13:08:57","slug":"e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"E.Chittaranjan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">E.Chittaranjan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 29\/10\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA\n\nWrit Petition (MD)No.5269 of 2007\n\nE.Chittaranjan\t\t\t\t\t   .. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The State of Tamil Nadu,\n  Rep.by its Secretary to the Government\n  and Agricultural Production Commissioner,\n  St.George Fort,\n  Chennai-9.\n\n2.The Commissioner of Agricultural Department,\n  Chepauk,\n  Chennai-9.\n\n3.The Commissioner of Horticulture,\n  Department of Horticulture,\n  Chepauk,\n  Chennai-9.\t\t\t\t\t   .. Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\nto issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to\nthe impugned charge memo issued by the second respondent in his proceedings\ngxe(vtp)1-192735\/98 dated 13.01.2002 and consequential charge memo issued by the\nthird respondent in his proceedings M1-16937-2003 dated 11.10.2003 and\nconsequential suspension order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings\nG.O(3D) No.113 Agriculture (AAVII) Department dated 31.05.2004 and consequential\norder of not permitting the petitioner retire from service in his proceedings\nG.O(3D) No.114 Agriculture (AAVII) Department dated 31.05.2004 and quash the\nsame as illegal and consequentily to direct the first respondent to permit the\npetitioner retire from service with monetary benefits.\n\n!For Petitioner ...Mr.M.Ajmal Khan\n^For Respondents...Mr.D.Sasikumar\n\t\t   Govt.Advoate.\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner E.Chittaranjan  has filed the present writ petition seeking<br \/>\nissuance of  Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to<br \/>\nthe impugned charge memo issued by the second respondent in his proceedings<br \/>\ngxe(vtp)1-192735\/98 dated 13.01.2002 and consequential charge memo issued by the<br \/>\nthird respondent in his proceedings M1-16937-2003 dated 11.10.2003 and<br \/>\nconsequential suspension order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings<br \/>\nG.O(3D) No.113 Agriculture (AAVII) Department dated 31.05.2004 and consequential<br \/>\norder of not permitting the petitioner to retire from service in his proceedings<br \/>\nG.O(3D) No.114 Agriculture (AAVII) Department dated 31.05.2004 and quash the<br \/>\nsame as illegal and consequentily to direct the first respondent to permit the<br \/>\npetitioner retire from service with monetary benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the second<br \/>\nrespondent in his proceedings dated 13.01.2002, issued the impugned charge memo<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner in respect of alleged delinquency committed by the<br \/>\npetitioner during 1983-84 and 1986-87 and subsequently, the Enquiry Officer held<br \/>\nthe enquiry on 19.07.2002 and finally submitted a report on 07.08.2002, but,<br \/>\neven after the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 31.05.2004,<br \/>\ntill date the disciplinary authority has not passed any final order on the<br \/>\nreport submitted by the Enquiry Officer.   He further submitted that the<br \/>\npetitioner has to face another disciplinary proceedings by issuing the second<br \/>\ncharge memo dated  11.10.2003 and  in the second charge memo,  though there are<br \/>\nfour charges only, after holding enquiry, the Enquiry Officer came to the<br \/>\nconclusion that the charge memos 1 to 3 have to be dropped and after dropping<br \/>\nthe charge memos 1 to 3 finding him guilty in respect of charge memo No.4.  In<br \/>\nhis report, the Enquiry Officer submitted a final report on 19.01.2004 and till<br \/>\ndate the disciplinary authority has not passed a final order on the report filed<br \/>\nby the Enquiry Officer.  Though the petitioner reached the superannuation on<br \/>\n31.05.2004, in view of the pending disciplinary proceedings, he was not allowed<br \/>\nto receive all the pensionary benefits and as a result of it and in view of the<br \/>\nabnormal delay in submission of final decision by the disciplinary authority,<br \/>\nthe present writ petition came to be filed for quashing the entire proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.In respect of the charge memo dated 13.01.2002 and 11.10.2003,  he<br \/>\nrelied upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex court in Ranjeet Singh -vs-<br \/>\nState of Haryana and Others reported in 2008 (3) CTC 781 followed by another<br \/>\njudgment of this Court in  R.Rajasekar -Vs- Secretary to Government,<br \/>\nAgricultural Department, Chennai and others reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 108.  In<br \/>\nboth  judgments, it has been held that if there is an abnormal delay in<br \/>\ncompleting enquiry and if the unexplained delay causes serious prejudice to the<br \/>\nemployees concerned, such enquiry will have to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.In the case of Ranjeet Singh -vs- State of Haryana and Others reported<br \/>\nin 2008 (3) CTC 781, the Honourable Supreme Court came to deal with the<br \/>\nunexplained delay of nine years after coming to the conclusion that due to the<br \/>\nabnormal delay of nine years, the entire enquiry was vitiated and hence declared<br \/>\nthat order of punishment is  null and void.   But, in the present case, the<br \/>\nenquiry was held only in the year 2002 and the enquiry in first charge memo held<br \/>\non 19.07.2002 and on completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a<br \/>\nreport on 07.08.2002, within two years from the date of submission of enquiry<br \/>\nreport the petitioner reached the superannuation on 31.05.2004.  In respect of<br \/>\nsecond charge memo dated 11.10.2003, the enquiry report was finally submitted on<br \/>\n19.01.2004 within four months and thereafter, the petitioner reached the<br \/>\nsuperannuation on 31.05.2004.  In view of the delay in not filing the final<br \/>\nreport on time by the disciplinary authority, the learned Counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner relied upon the above mentioned two judgments to quash the charge<br \/>\nmemo dated 13.01.2002 and 11.10.2003, suspension order dated 31.05.2004 another<br \/>\norder dated 31.05.2004 not permitting him to retire.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the<br \/>\npetitioner has not only suffered the above mentioned charge memos namely<br \/>\n13.01.2002 and 11.10.2003 and he has also caused heavy loss of Rs.59,60,000\/- to<br \/>\nthe respondent Department, when the Audit objections indicated that the<br \/>\npetitioner was found responsible for having caused a huge loss of Rs.59,60,000\/-<br \/>\nto the Department and the Vigilance enquiry has also been ordered, for which the<br \/>\nreport could not be secured.  In view of the several procedures followed for<br \/>\ncompletion of the vigilance enquiry, the disciplinary authority was not able to<br \/>\npass final order on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.When the petitioner was working as Agricultural Officer, Puthalam<br \/>\nCoconut Nursery, Kanyakumari District in the Agriculture Department, the 2nd<br \/>\nrespondent\/the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai, has initiated disciplinary<br \/>\naction under Rule 17(b) in Pa.O.Na.(AV1)192735\/98, dated 23.07.2002 for not<br \/>\nmaintaining the records properly and also for having caused a loss of<br \/>\nRs.13,139\/- to the Government as pointed out in the audit report.  Yet again,<br \/>\nthe petitioner, while he was serving in the Horticulture Department as Assistant<br \/>\nDirector of Horticulture, Central Horticulture Training Centre, Kudumianmalai,<br \/>\nwas issued with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services<br \/>\n(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, for dereliction of duty.  Apart from these two<br \/>\ncharge memos, there was one more vigilance case pending against him.  Fourthly,<br \/>\nthere were pending audit recoveries against the petitioner to the tune of<br \/>\nRs.59.60 lakhs in Horticulture department.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.In view of the above mentioned pending charges, as there was no final<br \/>\norders passed on the above mentioned two charges, he was not permitted to retire<br \/>\nfrom Government service on the date of reaching age of superannuation on<br \/>\n31.05.2004.  Therefore, he was kept under suspension by the 1st respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.Further, it is also relevant to note that when the petitioner was<br \/>\nserving as Assistant Director of Horticulture, Kodaikanal, he went on medical<br \/>\nleave frequently and thus, delayed achievement of the scheme targets and also he<br \/>\nhad not settled the vouchers to the 3rd respondent in time and as a result, no<br \/>\nbills were settled by the Treasury.  For these lapses, he was imposed with a<br \/>\npunishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect.<br \/>\nThis is nothing to do with the present disciplinary proceedings, as the<br \/>\nallegations are entirely different from the previous incidents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.Besides, when Mr.Tamilmani, another Horticulture Officer, was dismissed<br \/>\nfrom service on 02.07.2003 due to the involvement in the strike, he was<br \/>\nreinstated into service by the petitioner without any orders received from the<br \/>\nappointing authority and as he had no authority to appoint or reinstate any<br \/>\ndismissed officer into service and thereby, having caused misconduct, he was<br \/>\nplaced under suspension on the verge of retirement.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.Therefore, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner,<br \/>\nthere is no question on imposing double jeopardy punishment against the<br \/>\npetitioner.  Admittedly, the petitioner has given raise to several complaints<br \/>\none after another.  For the misconduct committed by the petitioner, while he was<br \/>\nworking as Assistant Director of Horticulture, Kodaikanal, he was imposed with a<br \/>\npunishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect,<br \/>\nwhereas the charges for absenteeism and non stayal at headquarter, separate<br \/>\ncharge memos were issued.  Therefore, there is no question of violation of<br \/>\nArticle 20(2) of the Constitution of India.  Finally, for two separate<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings, including the pending audit report to the tune of<br \/>\nRs.59.60 lakhs against the petitioner, he was not permitted to retire from<br \/>\nservice on attaining the age of superannuation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.The learned Government Advocate has also brought to the notice of this<br \/>\nCourt, a communication written by the Department to the Government Advocate<br \/>\nOffice wherein, the Director of Horticulture and Plantation Crops, Chepauk,<br \/>\nChennai-5, has conveyed a report that the Department was able to realise only<br \/>\nRs.17,99,119\/- out of Rs.41,60,881\/- from the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.In this view of the matter, though the disciplinary authority, in my<br \/>\nview should have passed final order on the basis of two reports submitted by the<br \/>\nEnquiry Officer, in view of the further proceedings of vigilance case  pending,<br \/>\nthis Court cannot quash the proceedings. However, though the vigilance case is<br \/>\naltogether a separate case, this Court directs the respondents to pass final<br \/>\norder on the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer within a<br \/>\nperiod of five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.After seeing that the vigilance case is also pending against the<br \/>\npetitioner,  the department is unable to recover the huge sum of Rs.41,60,881\/.<br \/>\nHence this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not<br \/>\ninclined to show indulgence to the petitioner to quash the entire proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed.  No<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>gsr<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Secretary to the Government<br \/>\n  and Agricultural Production Commissioner,<br \/>\n  St.George Fort,<br \/>\n  Chennai-9.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Commissioner of Agricultural Department,<br \/>\n  Chepauk,<br \/>\n  Chennai-9.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Commissioner of Horticulture,<br \/>\n  Department of Horticulture,<br \/>\n  Chepauk,<br \/>\n  Chennai-9.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court E.Chittaranjan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29\/10\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA Writ Petition (MD)No.5269 of 2007 E.Chittaranjan .. Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to the Government and Agricultural Production Commissioner, St.George Fort, [&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-14627","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>E.Chittaranjan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2010 - 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\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"E.Chittaranjan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-22T13:08:57+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=\"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\\\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"E.Chittaranjan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-22T13:08:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1479,\"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\\\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010\",\"name\":\"E.Chittaranjan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-22T13:08:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"E.Chittaranjan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 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":"E.Chittaranjan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2010 - 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\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"E.Chittaranjan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-22T13:08:57+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"E.Chittaranjan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-22T13:08:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010"},"wordCount":1479,"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\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010","name":"E.Chittaranjan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-22T13:08:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-chittaranjan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"E.Chittaranjan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 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\/14627","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=14627"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14627\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14627"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14627"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14627"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}