{"id":153554,"date":"2002-03-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002"},"modified":"2016-10-18T23:22:51","modified_gmt":"2016-10-18T17:52:51","slug":"a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"A.Pitchamuthu vs Superintending Engineer on 15 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
A.Pitchamuthu vs Superintending Engineer on 15 March, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS          \n\n DATED: 15.03.2002  \n\n CORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ            \n\n W.P.No.2226 of 1997 \n\n\n A.Pitchamuthu                          ..              Petitioner\n\n                Vs.\n\n Superintending Engineer,\nDharmapuri E.D. Circle,\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board,\nDharmapuri - 5                          ..              Respondent  \n\n\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of  the  Constitution  of  India\npraying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioner :Mr.S.Subbiah\nFor respondent  :Mr.V.Radhakrishnan (TNEB).  \n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
        Petitioner  has  filed this Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ
\nof Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the  order
\ndated 8.8.1996  in  Memo.    No.1-1\/PS\/A-1\/142\/96  on  the  file  of  the
\nrespondent and quash the  same  and  further  direct  the  respondent  to
\nrelease  all  the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner arising out
\nof the retirement of the petitioner from the services of  the  respondent
\non 30.6.1995.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   In  the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the
\npetitioner would submit that he was employed as Stores Custodian  in  the
\nrespondent  Board;  that during December 1988, the Stores were checked by
\nthe Special Team, Madras and  found  56  items  were  in  shortage;  that
\ntherefore,  the  respondent  issued  a  notice  on  22.5.1989 against the
\npetitioner to show cause as to why the cost of the materials found  short
\nshould  not  be  recovered  from him; that the petitioner sent a reply on
\n5.6.1989; that the respondent issued yet another  notice  on  26.7.1  989
\ncalling  upon him as to why the cost of materials allegedly worked out at
\nRs.1,50,689.37 plus centage and handling charge should not  be  recovered
\nfrom  him;  that  the  petitioner  also  sent  a  reply  on 3.8.198 9 and
\nthereafter, the respondent did not pass any order till 6.9.1995 .\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The petitioner would further submit that in the meantime, the
\nrespondent  initiated  disciplinary  proceedings  and  kept   him   under
\nsuspension  for some time and proposed to inflict punishment by directing
\ndemotion to the lower post for a period of three years, by a notice dated
\n6.6.1991; that therefore,  the  petitioner  filed  O.S.390  of  1991  and
\nobtained an order of temporary injunction in I.A.886 of 1991 and the same
\nwas  made  absolute  on 27.8.1991 and an order was passed on 12.1.1995 in
\nC.M.A.No.30 of 1993 confirming the order dated  27.8.1991;  that  pending
\nthe  suit,  he  was transferred to Kancheepuram and thereafter to Vellore
\nand got retired from  service  on  30.6.1995  on  attaining  the  age  of
\nsuperannuation; that the suit was dismissed on 27.7.1995 holding that the
\npetitioner would not be entitled to the reliefs sought for by him.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The  further  averments  of  the  writ petition are that the
\nrespondent issued a memo.  dated 6.9.1995 informing about the recovery of
\na sum of Rs.1,74,046.00 from his terminal benefits; that he filed W.P.142
\n66 of 1995 challenging the said memo.  and this  Court  passed  an  order
\nsetting aside  the  memo.  issued by the respondent further directing the
\nrespondent to issue fresh notice and pass appropriate  orders,  affording
\nan  opportunity  to  the  petitioner;  that  subsequently, the respondent
\nissued a charge memo.  dated 27.1.1996 to show cause as to why the  value
\nof  the  materials  in  shortage should not be recovered from him and for
\nthat the petitioner also replied on 27.2.1996; that the  petitioner  also
\nsubmitted his objections, but however, the respondent without considering
\nany  of  his  objections,  passed  the  impugned  order dated 8.8.1996 to
\nrecover a sum of Rs.91,579\/= out of his terminal benefits.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  In the counter filed on behalf  of  the  respondent,  besides
\ndenying  the allegations of the writ petition, it would be submitted that
\nwhen a complaint lodged with the police for the  loss  of  materials  was
\nunder  investigation, the petitioner was reinstated into Board service by
\nrevoking his suspension orders without prejudice to the  outcome  of  the
\npolice  investigation and departmental action to be taken against him and
\nwas posted to another section viz., Meter and Relay Test  at  Dharmapuri;
\nthat  while  the  petitioner  was  working  as  Stores  Custodian of MRT,
\nDharmapuri, he was arrested by the police on 14.2.1990 and  was  remanded
\nto  judicial  custody for an offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C.;
\nthat consequent to his arrest, he was again placed under suspension  with
\neffects from 14.2.1990; that pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings, he
\nwas ordered to be reverted to Grade II Stores Custodian.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   The  respondent would further submit that in finalisation of
\nthe  departmental  proceedings,  a  show  cause  notice  indicating   the
\nprovisional  punishment  of ‘Reversion to the post of Stores Custodian II
\nGrade for a period of three years’ was issued by memo.  dated 6\/17.6.1991
\nfor the charges proved which are grave in nature; that as per  the  order
\nof  this Court dated 29.11.1995, the respondent issued a fresh show cause
\nnotice to the petitioner on 27.01.1996; that an enquiry was  proposed  to
\nbe conducted on 10.4.1996 and subsequently posted to 15.4.19 96; that the
\npetitioner  has  also  participated  in the enquiry and he denied certain
\npoints  and  admitted  certain  lapses  committed  by  him;  that   after
\nconsidering  certain  points  raised  by  the  petitioner, the quantum of
\nrecovery of the amount had been reduced,  with  reference  to  the  valid
\nrecords;  that  after  taking into consideration the replies furnished by
\nthe petitioner and the written  objections,  the  quantum  of  amount  of
\nrecovery  has  been  reduced  to  Rs.91,579\/- considering the like nature
\ninitial shortage and surplus in his section and the  impugned  order  was
\npassed; that there is no reason between the order of recovery of the loss
\nof  materials  and  the  departmental proceedings instituted against him;
\nthat in the departmental proceedings, he was charged  for  negligence  in
\nhis duties and the recovery order is for the shortage of materials in his
\ncustody;  that  the responsibility lies only with the Stores Custodian in
\nrespect of his section and hence for any shortage of materials, he  would
\nbe  the  person answerable; that the petitioner has been paid the special
\nprovident fund cum gratuity and  sanction  has  also  been  accorded  for
\nprovisional pension.    On  such  averments, the respondent would pray to
\ndismiss the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf  of
\nthe  petitioner  would  lay  emphasis  on  the  legal  point  that  after
\nretirement, the respondent Board has no  right  to  proceed  against  the
\nservant and  would cite a judgment reported in Bhagirathi Jena VS.  Board
\nof Directors, O.S.F.C.  {(1999) 3 SCC 666} wherein  in  a  case  of  such
\nfacts,  the appellant therein was relieved on 1.7.1975 by the Corporation
\nwithout prejudice to the claims of the Corporation  and  thereafter,  the
\nquestion arose with regard to the continuance of the disciplinary enquiry
\nfor  the  purpose  of  reduction  of  retiral  benefits  payable  to  the
\nappellant.  The appellant contended that he retired on 30.6.1995 and  the
\ndisciplinary  proceedings  could not be continued even for the purpose of
\nmaking reduction of the retiral benefits in as  much  as  there  were  no
\nstatutory  regulations  made  by  the  Corporation  for such reduction of
\nretiral benefits.  The High Court of Orissa dismissed the  writ  petition
\nand on appeal, the Apex Court held that having permitted the appellant to
\nretire  from  service  on 30.6.1995, there was no authority vested in the
\nCorporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the  purpose
\nof  imposing  any  reduction  in  the  retiral  benefits  payable  to the
\nappellant and in the absence of such an authority, it must be  held  that
\nthe  enquiry  had  lapsed  and the appellant was entitled to full retiral
\nbenefits on retirement.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  It is not the situation that is  prevalent  in  the  case  in
\nhand.   In the case dealt with by the Apex Court, since there had been no
\nprovision to the effect that in case of misconduct being  established,  a
\ndeduction  could  be  made  after  retirement  from  service  as  per the
\nCorporation Rules, and therefore, without such authority  vested  in  the
\nCorporation  for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose
\nof imposing  any  reduction  in  the  retiral  benefits  payable  to  the
\nappellant, the same cannot be done as concluded by the Apex Court.  Here,
\nthe  petitioner  has not at all established that the respondent\/ Board is
\nbereft  of  such  authority,  and  therefore,  the  fact  situation  that
\nprevailed  for  arriving  at  such  conclusion in the above case does not
\nprevail in the case in hand and hence, the  ratio  applied  by  the  Apex
\nCourt therein does not become applicable to the case in hand.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  yet  another  judgment  reported  in  D.K.Yadav  Vs.   J.M.A.
\nIndustries Ltd.  (1993 II LLJ 696) would be cited  on  the  part  of  the
\nlearned  counsel  for  the  petitioner,  wherein a Full Bench of the Apex
\nCourt has held that “it is well settled that the right to life  enshrined
\nin  Article 21 of the Constitution would include the right to livelihood.
\nThe order of termination visits with civil  consequence  of  jeopardising
\nnot  only  the  worker’s livelihood but also the career and livelihood of
\nthe dependents.  Therefore, before taking any action of putting an end to
\nthe  tenure  of  an  employee,  fairplay  requires  that   a   reasonable
\nopportunity to put forth his case is given and domestic enquiry conducted
\ncomplying with the principles of natural justice.”\n<\/p>\n
        10.   No doubt, the above proposition held by the Honourable Apex
\nCourt has to be fully adhered to in any proceeding, especially in case of
\ntermination from service.  But the  petitioner’s  case  is  not  that  of
\ntermination,  nor  has  he  prayed  for  reinstatement in service nor for
\nback-wages nor on such claims for the retirement benefits.  In  the  case
\nin  hand,  the petitioner’s claim itself is to the effect of quashing the
\norder impugned, which is for the recovery of a sum of Rs.91,579  \/=  with
\nfurther  direction  to  release  the  terminal  benefits  payable to him.
\nTherefore, it is not a case that could be treated on the proposition held
\nby the Apex Court in the above judgment since there, it is  the  case  of
\ntermination visiting civil consequence of jeopardising the livelihood and
\nthe careers  of  the dependents.  But the fact situation that prevails in
\nthis case is not the same or similar in the judgment cited, and hence the
\nproposition held therein does not become applicable to the case in hand.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  In reply, the learned counsel appearing for  the  respondent
\nwould submit that the petitioner, in spite of having been served with all
\nnecessary notices, has not submitted any explanation at the initial stage
\nitself.   But,  he  only proceeded against the authority before the civil
\nforum filing the suit in O.S.No.390 of 1991  which  even  ultimately  got
\ndismissed  on  27.7.1995 and thereafter, he does not seem to have pursued
\non appeal since there are no averments to that effect.    The  petitioner
\nhas  also  approached  this Court, but without any consequence, but never
\nthe petitioner had cooperated with  the  Board  in  the  conduct  of  the
\nenquiry; that the petitioner appearing before the enquiry officer, should
\nhave  explained  how the shortage occurred and how he was not responsible
\nfor the same so as  to  get  him  out  of  the  enquiry  proceeding,  and
\ntherefore,  the impugned order dated 8.8.1996 passed by the Board thereby<\/p>\n
ordering to recover the shortage amount of Rs.91,579\/= from  out  of  the
\nfinal  settlement  to  be  made  in  favour  of the petitioner, cannot be
\nconcluded either arbitrary in nature or unreasonable or illegal.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  From the above pleadings of the facts and  circumstances  by
\nparties  and the discussion held on the successive events, it comes to be
\nknown that the Board was empowered with such powers to order recovery  of
\nthe  shortage  to the tune of Rs.91,579\/= from the retirement benefits of
\nthe petitioner since the Board proceedings provided  for  making  use  of
\nsuch  powers  entrusted  by  the  Board and such an order as one impugned
\nherein has been passed, as against which, the petitioner  had  instituted
\nthe  suit  in the civil forum of law in O.S.No.390 of 1991 on the file of
\nthe  Court  of  District  Munsif,  Dharmapuri  and  the  said  suit  also
\nadmittedly  having  come  to  be  dismissed, nothing is left with for the
\npetitioner before this forum since on  an  elaborate  enquiry  held,  the
\ncivil  forum  has  arrived  at the conclusion to dismiss the suit thereby
\nrejecting the case of the petitioner, against which, this Court,  sitting
\nin  the judicial review, cannot pass any order unless it is proved on the
\npart of the petitioner that either the recovery proceeding  initiated  or
\nthe  order  impugned  herein  is  bereft  of  authority  or is done in an
\narbitrary and highhanded manner  much  less  in  violation  of  the  high
\nprinciples  of  natural  justice  and  since  no such plea made nor proof
\nshown, the only conclusion that could be arrived at by this Court in  the
\nabove writ petition is to decline to interfere with the same.\n<\/p>\n
        13.   No  legal  infirmity or inconsistency nor error apparent on
\nthe face of the order seems to have occurred in the manner in  which  the
\norder  impugned has come to be passed warranting the interference of this
\nCourt.  Nor any lack of opportunity also comes to be seen in violation of
\nthe principles of  natural  justice,  since  no  such  points  have  been
\nhighlighted  even  on  the  part  of  the  petitioner excepting to make a
\npassing remark and what comes to be seen is that only the petitioner  has
\nnot  cooperated  with  the authorities in explaining the situation on his
\npart, and therefore, it cannot, in any circumstance, be held as  lack  of
\nopportunity  contemplated  by  law,  and therefore, there exists no valid
\nlegal ground in the whole of the case of the petitioner calling  for  the
\ninterference of this court as prayed for in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  In the above circumstances, the writ petition becomes liable
\nonly to be dismissed, in all respects.\n<\/p>\n
        In result, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is
\ndismissed as such.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
gs.\n<\/p>\n
15.03.2002
\nSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR      <\/p>\n
\/\/ TRUE COPY \/\/
\nSUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR       <\/p>\n
To
\nThe Superintending Engineer,
\nDharmapuri E.D.  Circle,
\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board,
\nDharmapuri – 5
\ngs.\n<\/p>\n
V.KANAGARAJ,J.\n<\/p>\n
Order
\nin W.P.No.2226 of 1997 <\/p>\n
15.03.2002 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court A.Pitchamuthu vs Superintending Engineer on 15 March, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.03.2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ W.P.No.2226 of 1997 A.Pitchamuthu .. Petitioner Vs. Superintending Engineer, Dharmapuri E.D. Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dharmapuri – 5 .. Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the […]<\/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-153554","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA.Pitchamuthu vs Superintending Engineer on 15 March, 2002 - 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-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.Pitchamuthu vs Superintending Engineer on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-18T17:52:51+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=\"11 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-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.Pitchamuthu vs Superintending Engineer on 15 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-18T17:52:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2233,\"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\\\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002\",\"name\":\"A.Pitchamuthu vs Superintending Engineer on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-18T17:52:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.Pitchamuthu vs Superintending Engineer on 15 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@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.Pitchamuthu vs Superintending Engineer on 15 March, 2002 - 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-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.Pitchamuthu vs Superintending Engineer on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-18T17:52:51+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.Pitchamuthu vs Superintending Engineer on 15 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-18T17:52:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002"},"wordCount":2233,"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\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002","name":"A.Pitchamuthu vs Superintending Engineer on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-18T17:52:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-pitchamuthu-vs-superintending-engineer-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.Pitchamuthu vs Superintending Engineer on 15 March, 2002"}]},{"@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\/153554","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=153554"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153554\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}