{"id":168952,"date":"2009-11-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009"},"modified":"2015-08-02T05:03:41","modified_gmt":"2015-08-01T23:33:41","slug":"t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"T S Rajagopal vs Management Of Bangalore on 2 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
T S Rajagopal vs Management Of Bangalore on 2 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF  \n\nDATED THIS THE 2ND DAYIOFANOIIIEIIIHERI 2009 V'\n\nBEFOII?iI$  \" I\n\nTHE I-ION'BLE MR.JUsTjOE RAM .'RE'II)DYI'\n\nWRIT PETITIoN_Ro. 29'.Ii2A1IOE 20O9'--(L~\u00a7'E{SRTC)\n\nBETWEEN\n\n   \ns\/O.TsLIBBAiArsI 'V ' '   .\nAGE 56 YEARS \"\n\nNO.84II';'\u20ac3i,:\"2NDAVII\u00e9i\u00a3IIN' -ROAD '  \nBYRAVESWARA_ NAGAR.  _'\nNAG21\\RABHAV'i~ M.AI'I\\I \n\nBANGAIORE  _   PETITIONER\n\n{BY SR1. G' NARASI REOOY, ADV}\n\n __I  -- ifIv_IAI*\u00a7IAG_5e::MENT OF BANGALORE\n\nMETROPOLITAN TRANSPORT\n.OO'RI>ORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE\n K H ROAD, BANGALORE A 27\n\" _ _E5Y ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.\n\n A.  THE CHIEF TRAFFIC CONTROLLER\n\n& DISC IPLENARY AUTHORITY\"\nB M T C CENTRAL OFFICE\nK H ROAD, BANGALORE -~ 27.  RESPONDENTS<\/pre>\n
THIS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227
\nOF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO  ‘<\/p>\n
THE AWARD OF’ LABOUR COURT DATE 24.4.2009’e’l5}1SSED
\nIN I.D. NO. 285\/1999 AS PER ANNMA; AND ETC.  <\/p>\n
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR <\/p>\n
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE F’O1.LOV\\\/’INGV:__  ‘ A<\/p>\n
The petitioner e a_conduc~’;or~ in th–e..r’espond’eni>–cg<\/p>\n
Road Transport. Corporation  to have
\ncomznitted the  tickets
\nbearing Nos_.734$2.0,;._:–..  734522 of
\ndenominatli.onl:.1:”i   5:    V  A  A three passengers,
\ntiravellingl  Bangalore Bus Station on
\n21.8.ll9\u00a77- J\ufb01said tickets were sold and<\/p>\n
accounted  trip No.2 against stages ‘7 and 6 in the<\/p>\n
 1V.sAia3r_v’\/Aniiltgvlrnaintained by the petitioner. The checking<\/p>\n
  checked the bus found 16 passengers,<\/p>\n
sleifgeld the tickets, secured the statement. of passengers,<\/p>\n
A ‘e~nter”ed their remarks in the way bill and issued an<\/p>\n
 offence memo and submitted a report to the disciplinary<\/p>\n
authority who initiated disciplinary proceedings by<\/p>\n
issuing the articles of charge foilowed by hoidinbfi<\/p>\n
permitting the parties to adduce evidence QfT’4(‘V’i’:3V~Vli~2<:()1-'V1"\u00bb.,1';1'1\u20ac<\/p>\n
charge. On remand. the petitioner was__'exaniiin'ed.'_fas'<\/p>\n
wwzi and marked three docuihent's has \\?\\g"1.:Vt'o.lNv3'.:V'Wh'ileb7. it<\/p>\n
for the respondent, two T. witnesses were."_iAeXa:nine'd has<\/p>\n
MWs–2 and 3 and eleven'V"i'\u20ac.'.1:VV:\u00a3..3"cu'1;ne1Vit:V3_"'vv*sre.'lvrtiarl<ed
\nM1 to M11. The  to the
\nmaterial on Arecordi\ufb02 the evidence
\nboth oral  to accept the
\nexplanation:_u_o;tier'ed  that the tickets in
\nthe ihandsV.Voi"='the'thragggfgassengers were actually picked
\nup by tile the \ufb02oor of the bus was and<\/p>\n
 a llli~dlQg that the charge of reissue of tickets to<\/p>\n
'  'of"c1'6passengers in the bus was proved. Keeping<\/p>\n
".ifi*'mind'ejjth;eV'fact that the petitioner Was imposed with<\/p>\n
niiiior; punishments on 118 occasions in the past. did<\/p>\n
 _ not find favour to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction<\/p>\n
 under Section l1–A of the Act to interfere with the<\/p>\n
quantum of punishment and accordingly, by the award<\/p>\n
dt. 24.4.2009 Annexure —- A rejected the reference.<\/p>\n
12%<\/p>\n
Hence this petition invoking Article  F1116:<\/p>\n
Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
3. Judicial review _ id.\n<\/p>\n
Constitution of India cannot extend to  exam’i;natio’n<\/p>\n
of the correctness or reaso1nableness~.ofia5 decision as a
\nmatter of fact. The purpose a.of_ judicial review is to
\nensure that the individ1.1al._ rece’iv,es”w.’fai’r treatment and<\/p>\n
not to  autho’rity”””after according fair<\/p>\n
treaitmentt\u00bbt?each\u00a7es,  matter which it is authorised by
\nlaw to Vdecide,.a:.:con–clusion which is correct in the eyes<\/p>\n
of.–Court4.”  Judicial “review is not an appeal from a<\/p>\n
 _d’ecision”U.but allllllfeview of the manner in which the<\/p>\n
A  V.decis.i’e.n’ isftifziade.\n<\/p>\n
 Having noticed the above limitation of the<\/p>\n
V ” judicial review, the contention advanced by the learned<\/p>\n
 ‘counsel for the petitioner that the three passengers<\/p>\n
travelling from K.R.Puram to Bangalore Bus Station, in<\/p>\n
possession of reissued tickets had picked them frombglt:<\/p>\n
-6-<\/span><\/p>\n
\ufb02oor of the bus, in my opinion, in gmd<\/p>\n
circumstances cannot be count.enanc_ed\/,_ Labour <\/p>\n
Court in the premise of the eyidlefjnce {tile 3<\/p>\n
Checking official, who chegtkedll’ bursa’<\/p>\n
statement of the passengerslthe ‘ticl{_ets Were issued<\/p>\n
by the petitioner  his duties as a<\/p>\n
conductor    each of them.\n<\/p>\n
The   boarded the bus at
\n of the route, to alight at
\nBaIig\u00a7alorell.t3’us:-.:Station’;”-.ti1e terminus, and the bus was
\nchecked a   after K.R.Puram, when only 16<\/p>\n
passveiigers lW’ere____travelling out of Whom 3 possessed the<\/p>\n
‘  If truly the three passengers had<\/p>\n
” picked tickets from the \ufb02oor of the bus, there is<\/p>\n
no eiiplanation forthcoming as to why the petitioner did<\/p>\n
   issue tickets to the said passengers at the place of<\/p>\n
 boarding i.e. the starting point for the trip. The<\/p>\n
explanation offered is nothing but a. ruse to get over the<\/p>\n
charge of reissue of tickets and is unacceptable to a<\/p>\n
but<\/p>\n
reasonable and rational mind. The Labour  was
\nfuliy justified in rejecting the explanationtitterediithe<\/p>\n
petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
5. The next contentionA:t.hat_Athe
\nheld reissued tickets  not and the
\nstatement of MW-.2;.,_the:’checi\u00a7.ing._AofficiaiA Was hearsay
\nand unacceptable.  This identical
\ncontention; carrieg  ‘-con_sVideration before the
\nApe}: tttt   Ijdelihi _’\u00a3’ransport Corporation —v-
\nshyamiaii, vz1\u00a7’e\u00a7j1.e\u00a2i’ii:wais held thus:<\/p>\n
he state_nf_1_evnt made by the petitioner who
\n excess money to the checking officer<\/p>\n
  vvis:”‘not-‘the nature of hearsay evidence.”<\/p>\n
In  Very same judgment, the Apex Court observed<\/p>\n
A   since the appellants misconduct of nonmissue of<\/p>\n
tickets was proved, it cannot be said that the<\/p>\n
‘ r__:2.ue4) 2; sec 83 M<\/p>\n
punishment of dismissal was disproportionate’sincethe<\/p>\n
misconduct was one of dishonesty.\n<\/p>\n
6. In KARNATAICA-..\u00a7TA1’1i”‘RQA\u00a7’V” <\/p>\n
CORPORATION vs.  hiya Division
\nBench of this    the passengers
\nstatement contains.-‘the it would
\nbe a  had collected
\nthe  it with an intention to
\n.. ‘i It is further observed that a
\ncondocior  from passengers and not<\/p>\n
actcotiiit.ingV.’i”or.t_h_e_same to the credit. of the corporation<\/p>\n
‘ V:VV’sh0tv1id~ti1ofvbe permitted to continue in the services of<\/p>\n
” the corfiorajtion.\n<\/p>\n
7. in North West Karnataka Road Transport<\/p>\n
 Corporation -v- S.S.Poleshi3, it was heici that in a<\/p>\n
domestic enquiry strict and sophisticated rules of<\/p>\n
3 2003(2) KLJ :25 (DB) M<\/p>\n
evidence under the Indian Evidence Act _Wo’uld.v not<\/p>\n
apply. In addition, it was observed <\/p>\n
allergy to hearsay evidence p__rovi_ded L4 <\/p>\n
nexus and credibility. The
\nwas some evidence or   in the
\nsense of the technical ruieAs_:-governing\u00bbv–.regular court
\nproceedings but in  way as men of
\nunderstanding  accept, was the<\/p>\n
observation” f “the Divisi’oI_1
\nA8. ” ‘I”h_e”..last’~.___o’fv”‘the contention that minor<\/p>\n
 on 118 occasions in the past<\/p>\n
 _canri”ot  a factor to impose a major punishment of<\/p>\n
    ufiolfrthe act of misconduct held proved is also<\/p>\n
vv\u00e9t_tho_u’t.rr\u00a3erit. I say so because the petitioner ought to<\/p>\n
.’ .r haveheen circumspect in the discharge of his duties as<\/p>\n
 -“conduct after having been imposed with minor<\/p>\n
‘punishments on 118 occasions in the past for similar<\/p>\n
misconducts. Having thrown all caution to wind. the<\/p>\n
320()0{=i) KL] 53:; {:33} M<\/p>\n
rIlIl[1v<\/p>\n
petitioner discharged his duties in such a ma.nne1f_V_that<\/p>\n
caused loss to the exehequer of the <\/p>\n
Transport Corporation, which\u00bb is .’tni’sa’pprop*riat.ioi’1. <\/p>\n
involving the employees eonfidlenee’ in thelpe:titiorier\u00a7l’i1.e_’<\/p>\n
9. The Apex court” in  Mo’h\u00e91nlf&VlV’<\/p>\n
Gupta4 held that taking alvlenlient Vlr\u20ac1Vl:\\,\\,\ufb01S ‘tam\/\/’alled for
\nmore so, in the  loss  inlthe employee
\nwhen act of rnisappronriatviorio\u00bb Vefstalolished. So also<\/p>\n
in lliI.P+Eleefri\u00a2ity’    Jagdish Chandra Sharma5
\n(2005]3’g_\u00a73iCC ” C Apex Court frowned upon the<\/p>\n
ir1_t&erIei’enceV” ~ the Labour Courts on irrational or<\/p>\n
‘xext1’arieous~..factors or on compassionate grounds and heid<\/p>\n
 ._ “thatV’su’eh i.njtei’ie1’ence was only capricious and arbitrary.<\/p>\n
2 x  Having examined the award. the Labour Court was<\/p>\n
AA ‘l1″u_}_}:y gustifiecl in recording a conclusion that the (:hai’ge<\/p>\n
 against the petitioner was proved and having regard to the<\/p>\n
j’ (20o0)9 see 521 M
\n~* (:20o5;3 sec am<\/p>\n
authoritative pr0110L1r1Cem.em of the Apex CO1lI’i”‘i~E1’ mahcer<\/p>\n
of interference in exercise of extraordinary.j_11f:;–sdiciii~oI1 uhder <\/p>\n
11–A of the Act was f11r1herj11.stfVfJ’1e>(Vib’ir1 \u00a7ie.\u00a21ir1i1[1.eg\u00bb’i(;.gihohheoxby 7,<\/p>\n
holding that the punishment 0f’eii.sf1’1i_ssaI <\/p>\n
commensurate with the gravi’$y “uf misee held \ufb01roved. V<\/p>\n
The writ   Ihierhivt and is.\n<\/p>\n
h jmee<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court T S Rajagopal vs Management Of Bangalore on 2 November, 2009 Author: Ram Mohan Reddy IN THE HIGH COURT OF DATED THIS THE 2ND DAYIOFANOIIIEIIIHERI 2009 V’ BEFOII?iI$ ” I THE I-ION’BLE MR.JUsTjOE RAM .’RE’II)DYI’ WRIT PETITIoN_Ro. 29′.Ii2A1IOE 20O9′–(L~\u00a7’E{SRTC) BETWEEN s\/O.TsLIBBAiArsI ‘V ‘ ‘ . AGE 56 YEARS ” NO.84II’;’\u20ac3i,:”2NDAVII\u00e9i\u00a3IIN’ -ROAD ‘ […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-168952","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT S Rajagopal vs Management Of Bangalore on 2 November, 2009 - 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\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T S Rajagopal vs Management Of Bangalore on 2 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-01T23:33:41+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T S Rajagopal vs Management Of Bangalore on 2 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-01T23:33:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1286,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009\",\"name\":\"T S Rajagopal vs Management Of Bangalore on 2 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-01T23:33:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T S Rajagopal vs Management Of Bangalore on 2 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"T S Rajagopal vs Management Of Bangalore on 2 November, 2009 - 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\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T S Rajagopal vs Management Of Bangalore on 2 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-01T23:33:41+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T S Rajagopal vs Management Of Bangalore on 2 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-01T23:33:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009"},"wordCount":1286,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009","name":"T S Rajagopal vs Management Of Bangalore on 2 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-01T23:33:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-rajagopal-vs-management-of-bangalore-on-2-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T S Rajagopal vs Management Of Bangalore on 2 November, 2009"}]},{"@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\/168952","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=168952"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168952\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168952"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168952"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168952"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}