{"id":154843,"date":"2006-02-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006"},"modified":"2014-09-18T16:59:37","modified_gmt":"2014-09-18T11:29:37","slug":"m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"M.E.Rajaram vs The Union Of India on 15 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M.E.Rajaram vs The Union Of India on 15 February, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 15\/02\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.MISRA       \nAND  \nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR         \n\nWRIT PETITION No.40113 of 2005   \nand W.P.M.P.No.43009 of 2005   \n\nM.E.Rajaram                                    ...  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Union of India, represented by\n    The Secretary to Government of India,\n    Ministry of Human Resources\n    Development, Department of Women and  \n    Child Development, Shastri Bhavan,\n    New Delhi-110001.\n\n2. The Deputy Technical Advisor,\n    Department of Women and Child Development,  \n    Food and Nutrition Board, Southen Region,\n    Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-6.\n\n3. The Central Administrative Tribunal,\n    Madras Bench, Chennai-104, \n    represented by its Deputy Registrar.        ...  Respondents.\n\n                Writ petition filed under Article 226 of The  Constitution  of\nIndia  to  issue  a  Writ  of  Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records\nrelating to the order in O.A.No.97 of 2005 dated 09.09.2005 on the file of the\nthird respondent upholding the  order  of  the  second  respondent  in  Office\nMemorandum  No.PF\/83\/FN  dated  31.01.2003  and  quash the said two orders and   \ndirect the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service  with  all\nthe attendant benefits.\n\n!For petitioner :  Mr.  P.Rajendran\n\n^For respondents :  Mr.R.Santhanam, SCGSC,   \n                        for RR.1 and 2.\n\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was made by P.K.MISRA.J)  <\/p>\n<p>                Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.   Though the matter was listed for considering the grant of<br \/>\nstay, since the question raised in the Miscellaneous petition is the  same  as<br \/>\nin  the  main  writ  petition  and  since  the  entire matter depends upon the<br \/>\ninterpretation of the rules, by consent of learned counsel appearing  for  the<br \/>\nparties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.   The  petitioner was placed under suspension on 31.01.2003<br \/>\nin contemplation of a departmental proceeding initiated under  Rule  10(1)  of<br \/>\nthe CCS  CCA Rules, 1965.  Thereafter, punishment of compulsory retirement was<br \/>\nimposed by order dated 29.01.2004 with effect from 31.01.2 004.  However,  the<br \/>\nappellate  authority  directed  a  de  novo enquiry by order dated 26.08.2004.<br \/>\nTherefore, by virtue of Rule 10(3), the petitioner is deemed to have continued<br \/>\nunder suspension on and from the date of  the  original  order  of  compulsory<br \/>\nretirement by  virtue  of  the order relating to de novo enquiry.  Thereafter,<br \/>\nthe petitioner filed Original Application No.97 of  2005  before  th  e  third<br \/>\nrespondent  Tribunal  challenging  the  continuation  of  the suspension order<br \/>\nbeyond a period of 90 days from the date of suspension, that is to  say,  from<br \/>\n26.08 .2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.   The main contention of the petitioner was on the basis of<br \/>\nthe provisions contained in Rule 10 (7), which came to be  incorporated  under<br \/>\nthe above  said rules by amendment dated 23.12.2003.  There is no dispute that<br \/>\nsuch amendment of rules is applicable.   For  consideration  of  the  question<br \/>\nraised  in  the  writ  petition, it is necessary to extract the relevant rules<br \/>\nviz.  10 (1), 10 (3), 10 (5), 10 (6) and 10 (7 ):-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8221; 10.  (1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to  which  it  is<br \/>\nsubordinate  or the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority empowered in<br \/>\nthat behalf by the President,  by  general  or  special  order,  may  place  a<br \/>\nGovernment servant under suspension&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>                (a)   where   a   disciplinary   proceeding   against  him  is<br \/>\ncontemplated or is pending; or<br \/>\n                (aa) where, in the opinion of the authority aforesaid, he  has<br \/>\nengaged  himself  in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of<br \/>\nthe State; or\n<\/p>\n<p>                (b) where a case  against  him  in  respect  of  any  criminal<br \/>\noffence is under investigation, inquiry or trial:\n<\/p>\n<p>        Provided  that,  except  in case of an order of suspension made by the<br \/>\nComptroller and Auditor-General in regard to a member of the Indian Audit  and<br \/>\nAccounts Service and in regard to an Assistant AccountantGeneral or equivalent<br \/>\n(other  than a regular member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service), where<br \/>\nthe order of suspension is made by an  authority  lower  than  the  Appointing<br \/>\nAuthority,  such  authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority<br \/>\nthe circumstances in which the order was made.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (3) Where a penalty of dismissal,  removal  or  compulsory  retirement<br \/>\nfrom  service  imposed upon a Government servant under suspension is set aside<br \/>\nin appeal or on review under these rules and the case is remitted for  further<br \/>\ninquiry  or  action  or with any other directions, the order of his suspension<br \/>\nshall be deemed to have continued in force,  on  and  from  the  date  of  the<br \/>\noriginal order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain<br \/>\nin force until further orders.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (5)  (a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under<br \/>\nthis rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by<br \/>\nthe authority competent to do so.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (b) Where a Government servant is suspended or is deemed to have  been<br \/>\nsuspended   (whether   in  connection  with  any  disciplinary  proceeding  or<br \/>\notherwise), and any other disciplinary proceeding  is  commenced  against  him<br \/>\nduring  the  continuance  of that suspension, the authority competent to place<br \/>\nhim under suspension may, for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, direct<br \/>\nthat the Government servant shall continue to be under  suspension  until  the<br \/>\ntermination of all or any of such proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (c) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this<br \/>\nrule  may at any time be modified or revoked by the authority which made or is<br \/>\ndeemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that  authority  is<br \/>\nsubordinate.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this<br \/>\nrule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke<br \/>\nthe  suspension  before expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension<br \/>\non the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose  and<br \/>\npass orders  either  extending or revoking the suspension.  Subsequent reviews<br \/>\nshall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension.    Extension<br \/>\nof suspension shall not be for a period exceeding 180 days at a time.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (7)  Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule 5 (a), an order of<br \/>\nsuspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rules (1) or (2) of this<br \/>\nrule shall not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it is extended  after<br \/>\nreview, for a further period before the expiry of 90 days.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   Even  though  the  Tribunal  had specifically referred to<br \/>\nRules 10 (6) and 10 (7), it came to the conclusion that there is  no  specific<br \/>\nprovision  in  Rule  10  (6) to the effect that if the suspension order is not<br \/>\nextended, the suspension of the petitioner comes to an  end  automatically  on<br \/>\nthe expiry  of  the  period  of  90  days.  It is, therefore, obvious that the<br \/>\nTribunal has not placed any reliance upon Rule 10 (7) mainly because  in  Rule<br \/>\n10 (7), a reference is made to Rules 10 (1) and 10(2) and there is no specific<br \/>\nreference to Rule 10(3).\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended<br \/>\nthat  Rules  10 (6) and 10 (7) which have been introduced by way of amendment,<br \/>\nshould not be read in isolation and should be read together.  According to the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner, the suspension can be  made  either  under<br \/>\nRule 10  (1)  or  Rule 10 (2).  The provision contained in Rule 10 (3) is only<br \/>\ndeemed continuation of suspension made under Rule 10 (1) or Rule  10  (2),  if<br \/>\nsubsequently order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is set aside<br \/>\nand a  direction  is  issued  for  de  novo enquiry.  According to the learned<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for the petitioner, the provision contained in Rule  10  (3)<br \/>\ndoes  not  have  any  application  as  it  is  only a deemed continuation of a<br \/>\nsuspension order already made either under Rule 10 (1) or 10 (2).   Therefore,<br \/>\nit  is  submitted  that the specific provision contained in Rule 10(7) is also<br \/>\napplicable to the deemed continuation of a suspension order as contemplated in<br \/>\nRule 10 (3).\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  In this connection, the learned counsel for petitioner has<br \/>\nalso submitted that the main intention of introducing Rule 10 (6)  is  that  a<br \/>\nperson should not be continued under indefinite suspension and the appropriate<br \/>\nauthority  should undertake a review after 90 days so that the person need not<br \/>\nbe continued under indefinite suspension.  Since the intention is  to  have  a<br \/>\nreview  at  a specified period and not to encourage the indefinite suspension,<br \/>\nboth provisions should be read together as otherwise,  the  intention  of  the<br \/>\nrule making authority will be lost sight of.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.    Learned   Senior  Central  Government  Standing  Counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the respondent submitted that Rule 10 (7)  makes  it  applicable<br \/>\nonly  to  a  suspension under Rule 10 (1) or Rule 10 (2) and since there is no<br \/>\nreference in Rule 10 (7) to any suspension under 10(3), such rule  should  not<br \/>\nbe  applied  to  the suspension, whic h is deemed to be continued by virtue of<br \/>\nrule 10(3).\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  We are unable to accept the submission made by the  Senior<br \/>\nCentral Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.  As rightly<br \/>\npointed  out  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner,  the provisions<br \/>\ncontained in Rule 10 (3) must be read in a harmonious manner with Rules 10 (1)<br \/>\nand 10 (2).  The order of suspension envisaged under Rule 10 (3) is  attracted<br \/>\nonly  in  a  situation  where  the  order  of dismissal, removal or compulsory<br \/>\nretirement is subsequently set aside and  the  matter  is  remitted  back  for<br \/>\nfurther enquiry  or  action.   Thus, in such an event, the order of suspension<br \/>\nunder Rules 10 (1) or 10 (2), as the case may be,  shall  be  deemed  to  have<br \/>\ncontinued to be in force.  This is not an independent power of suspension; but<br \/>\nthe  necessary  effect of a review of the order of punishment by the appellate<br \/>\nauthority.  Therefore, in our opinion, any order deemed to  have  been  passed<br \/>\nunder  Rule  10  (3) or an order made under Rule 10 (1) or 10 (2), as the case<br \/>\nmay be, is required to be reviewed as contemplated under Rule 10  (6)  and  if<br \/>\nsuch  order  is  not  reviewed  within  the  time stipulated, the consequences<br \/>\nenvisaged under Rule 10 (7) automatically come into effect.  In such  view  of<br \/>\nthe  matter, the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable and is liable<br \/>\nto be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.   In  the  course  of  argument,  learned  Senior  Central<br \/>\nGovernment  Standing  Counsel,  appearing  for the respondent pointed out that<br \/>\npursuant to the order passed by the  Tribunal  dated  09.09.2005,  the  review<br \/>\nbefore the concerned authority has taken place and the authority has passed an<br \/>\norder of  continuation of suspension.  However, in view of the fact as per the<br \/>\nstatutory rules, the suspension had come to an end long before such order  was<br \/>\npassed, continuation  order will not be effective.  However, the present order<br \/>\nshall not stand in the way of the competent authority passing any fresh  order<br \/>\nof suspension  in  accordance  with the relevant provisions.  It is made clear<br \/>\nthat the present order by us should not be construed as expressing any opinion<br \/>\non the merits of the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.  It is expected  that  the  departmental  authority  shall<br \/>\ncomplete  the  proceedings  within  a  reasonable period and the delinquent is<br \/>\nexpected to cooperate in the early disposal of the  departmental  proceedings.<br \/>\nSince  the  order  of suspension has been quashed, the petitioner is deemed to<br \/>\nhave been in service for the said period.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.  The writ petition is  ordered  accordingly.    No  costs.<br \/>\nConsequently, connected W.P.M.P is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>sbi<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Secretary to Government of India,<br \/>\nUnion of India, represented by<br \/>\nMinistry of Human Resources<br \/>\nDevelopment, Department of Women and<br \/>\nChild Development, Shastri Bhavan,<br \/>\nNew Delhi-110001.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Deputy Technical Advisor,<br \/>\nDepartment of Women and Child Development,<br \/>\nFood and Nutrition Board, Southen Region,<br \/>\nShastri Bhavan, Chennai-6.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Central Administrative Tribunal,<br \/>\nMadras Bench, Chennai-104,<br \/>\nrepresented by its Deputy Registrar.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M.E.Rajaram vs The Union Of India on 15 February, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15\/02\/2006 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.MISRA AND THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR WRIT PETITION No.40113 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.No.43009 of 2005 M.E.Rajaram &#8230; Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Union of India, represented by [&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-154843","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>M.E.Rajaram vs The Union Of India on 15 February, 2006 - 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\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.E.Rajaram vs The Union Of India on 15 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-18T11:29:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.E.Rajaram vs The Union Of India on 15 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-18T11:29:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1665,\"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\\\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006\",\"name\":\"M.E.Rajaram vs The Union Of India on 15 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-18T11:29:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.E.Rajaram vs The Union Of India on 15 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"M.E.Rajaram vs The Union Of India on 15 February, 2006 - 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\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.E.Rajaram vs The Union Of India on 15 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-18T11:29:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.E.Rajaram vs The Union Of India on 15 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-18T11:29:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006"},"wordCount":1665,"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\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006","name":"M.E.Rajaram vs The Union Of India on 15 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-18T11:29:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-e-rajaram-vs-the-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.E.Rajaram vs The Union Of India on 15 February, 2006"}]},{"@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\/154843","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=154843"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154843\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154843"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154843"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154843"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}