{"id":16945,"date":"2010-01-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-20T16:31:04","modified_gmt":"2016-06-20T11:01:04","slug":"madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Madan Gopal vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Madan Gopal vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 January, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>Court No. - 29\n\nCase :- WRIT - A No. - 35407 of 2007\n\nPetitioner :- Madan Gopal\nRespondent :- State Of U.P. And Others\nPetitioner Counsel :- Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, Arvind\nKumar,Arvind Srivastava\nRespondent Counsel :- C.S.C.\n\nHon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>Hon&#8217;ble Kashi Nath Pandey,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Consittution of<br \/>\nIndia has been filed by the petitioner, inter-alia, praying for issuance<br \/>\nof direction to decide the Representation\/Appeal dated 05.02.2007<br \/>\nfiled by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. The Writ<br \/>\nPetition is being disposed of at this stage with the consent of the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>      From the averments made in the Writ Petition and other<br \/>\naffidavits on the record, it appears that the petitioner was appointed<br \/>\nas Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Depatment on 15.09.1983.<br \/>\nThe State Government by its letter dated 13.04.1993, confirmed the<br \/>\nservices of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The petitioner was placed under suspension by the order dated<br \/>\n26.10.2005 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition), and the disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings were initiated against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The petitioner was given Charge-sheet levelling two charges<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner. Charge no. 1, inter-alia pertained to various<br \/>\nfinancial irregularities allegedly committted by the petitioner. Charge<br \/>\nno. 2, inter-alia, pertained to pecuniary loss caused by the petitioner<br \/>\nto the Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The petitioner submitted his Reply to the Charge-Sheet. The<br \/>\nInquiry Officer held the inquiry proceedings, and thereafter submitted<br \/>\nhis report dated 04.05.2006. The Inquiry Officer recorded findings on<br \/>\nboth the charges against the petitioner, and found that the said<br \/>\ncharges against the petitioner were proved. Copy of the said Inquiry<br \/>\nReport has been filed as Annexure 1 to the Affidavit accompanying<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Civil Miscellaneous (Amendment) Application no. 292796 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>      After the submission of the Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary<br \/>\nAuthority sent copy of the Inquiry Report to the petitioner as per the<br \/>\nprovisions of Rule 9(4) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline<br \/>\nand Appeal) Rules, 1999 calling upon the petitioner to submit his<br \/>\nrepresentation. The petitioner submitted his Representation dated<br \/>\n23.06.2006. Comments of the Chief Engineer, Public Works<br \/>\nDepartment, Kanpur were called on the said Representation of the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>      After considering the Inquiry Report, the Representation<br \/>\nsubmitted by the petitioner, the Comments submitted by the Chief<br \/>\nEngineer as well as other relevant records, the Disciplinary Authority<br \/>\nby the order dated 08.01.2007 (Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition)<br \/>\nimposed the following punishment against the petitioner :\n<\/p>\n<p>      1. Recovery of 35% of Rs. 93,971\/- i.e. a sum of Rs. 33,890\/- in<br \/>\nrespect of the pecuniary loss caused to the Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2. Temporary stoppage of two annual increments for two years.\n<\/p>\n<p>      3. Censure entry be given to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The aforesaid order dated 08.01.2007 (Annexure 2 to the Writ<br \/>\nPetition) passed by the Disciplinary Authority was challenged by the<br \/>\npetitioner by amending the Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It further appears that prior to the filing of the present Writ<br \/>\nPetition, the petitioner had filed a Representation\/Appeal against the<br \/>\nsaid order dated 08.01.2007. By the order dated 10.09.2007, the<br \/>\nRepresentation\/Appeal of the petitioner was decided. It was directed<br \/>\nthat the period of suspension of the petitioner, namely, from<br \/>\n26.10.2006 to 08.01.2007 would be treated as the period spent on<br \/>\nduty for the purposes of pension but only subsistence allowance<br \/>\nwould be admissible to the petitioner for the said period. Copy of the<br \/>\nsaid order dated 10.09.2007 has been filed as Annexure 2 to the<br \/>\nAffidavit accompanying to the aforesaid Amendment Application filed<br \/>\non behalf of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>      We have heard Sri. Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>respondents and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n<p>      From the perusal of the Inquiry Report, it is evident that after<br \/>\ngiving the petitioner reasonable opportunity of being heard in the<br \/>\nmatter, the Inquiry Officer submitted a detailed Inquiry Report on<br \/>\nconsideration of the material on record, and found the charges<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner as proved. No perversity or illegality has been<br \/>\nshown in the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect of the<br \/>\ntwo Charges levelled against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Again, the Disciplinary Authority gave opportunity to the<br \/>\npetitioner to make Representation against the findings recorded by<br \/>\nthe Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority on consideration of the<br \/>\nmaterial on record agreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry<br \/>\nOfficer, and imposed the punishment against the petitioner as<br \/>\nmentioned above. No illegality has been shown to have been<br \/>\ncommitted by the Disciplinary Authority in passing the impugned order<br \/>\ndated 08.01.2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It is well settled that in a proceeding under Article 226 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India, the High Court is concerned only with the<br \/>\nquestions whether the enquiry was held by an authority competent in<br \/>\nthat behalf and according to the prescribed procedure and whether<br \/>\nthe principles of natural justice have not been violated. The High<br \/>\nCourt does not act as a court of appeal over the decision of the<br \/>\nauthorities holding a departmental enquiry. Reference in this regard<br \/>\nmay be made to the following decisions:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>              1. State of A.P. and others Vs. S. Sree<br \/>\n         Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723(1727)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              2. Bhagat Ram Vs. State of H.P. and others,<br \/>\n         AIR 1983 SC 454(459)<\/p>\n<p>      In view of the above legal position, we are of the opinion that no<br \/>\ninterference is called for with Inquiry Report and the impugned order<br \/>\ndated 08.01.2007.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      Coming now to the question of proportionality of the<br \/>\npunishment, a Division Bench of this Court in Hukum Chand Vs.<br \/>\nState Service Tribunal, Lucknow and others, 2008 (3) ALJ 479<br \/>\n(D.B.), summarized the legal position as under (Paragraph 51 of the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>said ALJ):\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                 &#8220;It has been laid by the Supreme Court in<br \/>\n           various decisions that the punishment imposed<br \/>\n           by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate<br \/>\n           Authority should not be subjected to judicial<br \/>\n           review unless the same is shocking to the<br \/>\n           conscience of the Court\/Tribunal. Reference in<br \/>\n           this regard may be made to the following<br \/>\n           decisions:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                 1. Chairman and Managing Director,<br \/>\n           United Commercial Bank and others Vs. P.C.<br \/>\n           Kakkar, AIR 2003 SC 1571 (2003 All LJ 812)<br \/>\n           (paragraphs 1,12,13 and 14).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                 2. V. Ramana Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. and others,<br \/>\n           AIR 2005 SC 3417 (paragraphs 12,13 and 14).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                 3. General Secretary, South Indian<br \/>\n           Cashew Factories Workers Union Vs. Managing<br \/>\n           Director, Kerala State Cashew Development<br \/>\n           Corporation Ltd. and others, AIR 2006 SC 2208<br \/>\n           (paragraph 16).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                 4. Union of India and others Vs. Dwarka<br \/>\n           Prasad Tiwari, (2006) 10 SCC 388:(2006 AIR<br \/>\n           SCW 5185) (paragraphs 10,11,15,16 and 17)&#8221;.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>         Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the Charges<br \/>\nlevelled and proved against the petitioner, we are of the opinion that<br \/>\nthe punishment imposed by the petitioner cannot be said to be<br \/>\ndisproportionate. The punishment cannot, in our view, be said to be<br \/>\nsuch as is shocking to the conscience of the Court. Therefore, no<br \/>\ninterference is called for with the punishment imposed on the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>         In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Writ Petition<br \/>\nlacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>         The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, on the<br \/>\nfacts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order Date :- 12.1.2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sushma\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Madan Gopal vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 January, 2010 Court No. &#8211; 29 Case :- WRIT &#8211; A No. &#8211; 35407 of 2007 Petitioner :- Madan Gopal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, Arvind Kumar,Arvind Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon&#8217;ble Satya [&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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16945","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Madan Gopal vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 January, 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\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Madan Gopal vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-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=\"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-20T11:01:04+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Madan Gopal vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-20T11:01:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1121,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Madan Gopal vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-20T11:01:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Madan Gopal vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 January, 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":"Madan Gopal vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 January, 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\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Madan Gopal vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-20T11:01:04+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Madan Gopal vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-20T11:01:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010"},"wordCount":1121,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010","name":"Madan Gopal vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-20T11:01:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-gopal-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Madan Gopal vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 January, 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\/16945","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=16945"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16945\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16945"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16945"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16945"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}