{"id":174967,"date":"2010-01-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010"},"modified":"2017-01-04T19:16:40","modified_gmt":"2017-01-04T13:46:40","slug":"dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dheeraj Kumar Sharma vs Central Bank Of India And Others on 7 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Dheeraj Kumar Sharma vs Central Bank Of India And Others on 7 January, 2010<\/div>\n
                                                                Court No. 26\n\n\n                Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18522 of 2003\n\n\n                          Dheeraj Kumar Sharma\n                                    Vs.\n                      Central Bank of India and others\n\n\nHON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.\n<\/pre>\n
      Heard Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
\nK.R.S. Jadaun, learned counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
      This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order, Annexure-5 to
\nthe writ petition as well as the order dated 19.3.2003 which has not been
\nserved on the petitioner. It appears that the father of the petitioner was
\nworking in the respondent-bank and died in harness and after his voluntary
\nretirement, the petitioner claimed appointment under the Dying in Harness
\nRules. The application was processed and No Objection Certificate was also
\nsubmitted but no orders have been passed. Then the petitioner filed a
\nrepresentation to the competent authority to pass appropriate orders. The
\npetitioner submits that an order was communicated to the petitioner on
\n4.4.2003 by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by a non-
\nspeaking and unreasoned order. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected
\nonly on the basis of a letter dated 19.3.2003 sent by regional office
\nmentioned therein that the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered for
\nthe reason that the financial problem of the family is adequate, therefore, as
\nper the guidelines, no appointment can be made. Sri Budhwar, learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is an order of non-
\napplication of mind without assigning any reason, therefore, is liable to be
\nquashed. He has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered in the case of
\nM\/S Travancore Rayons Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and others reported
\nin AIR 1971 SC 862 and has relied upon paragraphs 7 and 11 which are
\nquoted below:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
“7. The question raised before the Collector of Customs was
\nof a complicated nature and for its proper appreciation
\nrequired familiarity with the chemical composition and
\nphysical properties of nitro-cellulose lacquers and of the
\nsubstance produced by the appellant Company. The
\nCollector in deciding the appeal wrote an order running
\ninto 18 typed pages. There were before the Collector
\nconflicting opinions of the Chemical Examiner and the Silk
\nMills Research Association, Bombay. The Collector gave
\ntwo personal hearings to the Appellant Company. No
\npersonal hearing was given by the Government of India to
\nthe appellant Company even though the matter raised
\ncomplex questions. It is true that the rules do not require
\nthat personal hearing shall be given, but, if in appropriate
\ncases where complex and difficult questions requiring
\nfamiliarity with technical problems are raised, personal
\nhearing is given it would conduce to better administration
\nand more satisfactory disposal of the grievances of citizens.
\nThe order does not disclose the name or designation of the
\nauthority of the Government of India who considered “the
\npoints made by the applicants”, and it is impossible to say
\nwhether the officer was familiar with the subject-matter so
\nthat he could decide the dispute without elucidation and
\nmerely on a perusal of the papers. The form in which the
\norder was communicated is apparently a printed form.
\nThere is a bare assertion by the Joint Secretary to the
\nGovernment of India in his communication that the
\nGovernment of India had “carefully considered the points
\nmade by the applicants”, there is no evidence as to who
\nconsidered the “points” and what was considered. The
\nCentral Government is by Section 36 invested with the
\njudicial power of the State. Orders involving important
\ndisputes are brought before the Government. The orders
\nmade by the Central Government are subject to appeal to
\nthis Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. It would be
\nimpossible for this Court, exercising jurisdiction under
\nArticle l36, to decide the dispute without a speaking order of
\nthe authority, setting out the nature of the dispute, the
\narguments in support thereof raised by the aggrieved party
\nand reasonably disclosing that the matter received due
\nconsideration by the authority competent to decide the
\ndispute. Exercise of the right to appeal to this Court would
\nbe futile, if the authority chooses not to disclose the reasons
\nin support of the decision reached by it. A party who
\napproaches the Government in exercise of a statutory right,
\nfor adjudication of a dispute is entitled to know at least the
\nofficial designation of the person who has considered the
\n                                                                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
            matter, what was considered by him, and the reasons for
\n            recording a decision against him. To enable the High Court
\n            or this Court to exercise its constitutional powers, not only
\n            the decision, but an adequate disclosure of materials
\n            justifying an inference that there has been a judicial
\n            consideration of the dispute by an authority competent in
\n            that behalf in the light of the claim made by the aggrieved
\n            party, is necessary. If the Officer acting on behalf of the
\n            Government chooses to give no reasons, the right of appeal
\n            will be devoid of any substance.”\n<\/p>\n
            “11. In this case the communication from the Central
\n            Government gave no reasons in support of the order; the
\n            appellant Company is merely intimated thereby that the
\n            Government of India did not see any reasons to interfere
\n            “with the order in appeal”. The communication does not
\n            disclose the “points” which were considered and the
\n            reasons for rejecting them. This is a totally unsatisfactory
\n            method of disposal of a case in exercise of the judicial
\n            power vested in the Central Government. Necessity to give
\n            sufficient reasons which disclose proper appreciation of the
\n            problem to be solved, and the mental process by which the
\n            conclusion is reached in cases where a non-judicial
\n            authority exercises judicial functions, is obvious. When
\n            judicial power is exercised by an authority normally
\n            performing executive or administrative functions, this Court
\n            would require to be satisfied that the decision has been
\n            reached after due consideration of the merits of the dispute,
\n            uninfluenced by extraneous considerations of policy or
\n            expediency. The Court insists upon disclosure of reasons in
\n            support of the order on two grounds: one, that the party
\n            aggrieved in a proceeding before the High Court or this
\n            Court has the opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons
\n            which persuaded the authority to reject his case were
\n            erroneous: the other, that the obligation to record reasons
\n            operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by
\n            the executive authority invested with the judicial power.”\n<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel for the respondent is not able to dispute the said
\nanalogy as submitted by Sri Budhwar before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
      I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and
\nperused the record. From the perusal of the record it appears that the claim of
\n                                                                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
the petitioner has been rejected in a cryptic manner without assigning any
\nreason. It is well settled in law that the administrative authorities are bound to
\nrecord reasons while dismissing the claim of a person. If no reason has been
\nrecorded , there will be a presumption in law that the order is an order of non-
\napplication of mind.\n<\/p>\n
      It is well settled that an order having civil consequences even though
\npassed by the administrative authority must contain reasons so as to enable the
\naggrieved party to challenge the reasoning of the administrative authority. In
\nthe absence of reasons no foundation can be laid down by the petitioner and
\nonly argument remains is that the order is based upon non-application of
\nmind. In our view if the reasoning of an order passed against the aggrieved
\nperson is not communicated and only a communication regarding decision has
\nbeen communicated it cannot be assailed by the respondents that the grievance
\nof a person has been decided. In our opinion, it is no order in eye of law and it
\nhas no legs to stand.\n<\/p>\n
      In case of S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India reported in A.I.R. 1984
\nthe Apex Court has already held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
             “In view of the expanding horizon of the principles of natural
\n      justice, the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the
\n      principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by
\n      administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied
\n      rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular
\n      statutory framework where under jurisdiction has been conferred on the
\n      administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular
\n      power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or
\n      quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power,
\n      may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons
\n      for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the
\n      order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense
\n      with such a requirement. It may do so by making an express provision to
\n      that effect. Such an exclusion can also arise by necessary implication
\n      from the nature of the subject matter, the scheme and the provisions of
\n      the enactment. The public interest under lying such a provision would
\n      outweigh the salutary purpose served by the requirement to record the
\n                                                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
reasons. The said requirement cannot, therefore, be insisted upon in
\nsuch a case. Therefore except in cases where the requirement has been
\ndisposed with expressly or by necessary implications, an administrative
\nauthority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to
\nrecord the reasons for its decision.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a
\nsalutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and
\nassures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said
\npurpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot
\nbe confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial
\nreview. Therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should
\ngovern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-
\njudicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject
\nto appeal, revision or judicial review. It is however not required that the
\nreasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. The
\nextent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and
\ncircumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and
\nexplicitly so as to indicate that the authority has been due consideration
\nto the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater
\nin a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate
\nor revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate
\nreasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons
\ncontained in the order under challenge.\n<\/p>\n
      In the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
\nSecondary Education Vs. K.S.Gandhi and others reported in 1991 (2)
\nSCC, 716 the Apex Court has held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       The reasons are harbinger between the mind of the maker of the
\norder to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion
\narrived at. They also exclude the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical
\nor capricious decision or conclusion. The reasons assure an Inbuilt
\nsupport to the conclusion\/decision reached. When an order affects the
\nright of a citizen or a person, irrespective of the fact whether it is a
\nquasi-judicial or administrative order, and unless the rule expressly or
\nby necessary implication excludes recording of reasons, it is implicit that
\nthe principles of natural justice or fair play require recording of
\ngermane and precise relevant reasons as a part of fair procedure. In an
\nadministrative decision, its order\/decision itself may not contain reasons.
\nIt may not be the requirement of the rules, but a the least, the record
\nshould disclose reasons. It may not be like a judgement. The extent and
\nnature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and
\ncircumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and
\nexplicitly so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration
\nto the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater
\nin a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate
\n                                                                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
      or revisional authority, of it affirms such an order, need not give
\n      separate reasons. If the appellate or revisional authority disagrees, the
\n      reasons must be contained in the order under challenge. The recording
\n      of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned consciously
\n      applied its mind to the facts on record. It also aids the appellate or
\n      revisional authority or the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court
\n      under Article 226 or the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
\n      under Article 136 to see whether the authority concerned acted fairly and
\n      justly to mete out justice to the aggrieved person.\n<\/p>\n
            In the case of M\/s Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs. State of
\n      U.P. & others reported in AIR 1970, SC, 1302, the Apex Court has held
\n      as under:-\n<\/p>\n
             “The High Court in rejecting the petition filed by the appellants
\n      has observed that the District Magistrate in considering the explanation
\n      of the appellants had “considered all the materials” and also that “the
\n      State Government in considering the appeal had considered all the
\n      materials”. We have, however, nothing on the record to show what
\n      materials if any were considered by the District Magistrate and the State
\n      Government. The High Court has also observed that Clause 7 of the
\n      Sugar Dealers’ Licensing Order does not require “the State Government
\n      to pass a reasoned order. All that is required is to give an aggrieved
\n      person an opportunity of being heard.” We are of the view that the High
\n      court erred in so holding. The appellants have a right not only to have
\n      an opportunity to make a representation, but they are entitled to have
\n      their representation considered by an Authority unconcerned with the
\n      dispute and to be given information which would show the decision was
\n      reached on the merits and not on considerations of policy or expency.
\n      This is a clear implication of the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by
\n      the appellate authority; it is not required to be expressly mentioned in
\n      the statute. There is nothing on the record which shows that the
\n      representation made by the appellants was even considered. The fact
\n      that Clause 7 of the Sugar Dealers’ Licensing Order to which the High
\n      Court has referred does not “require the State Government to pass a
\n      reasoned order” is wholly irrelevant. The nature of the proceeding
\n      requires that the State Government must give adequate reasons which
\n      disclose that an attempt was made to reach a conclusion according to
\n      law and justice.”\n<\/p>\n
      In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is allowed. The order,
\nAnnexure-5 to the writ petition communicated to the petitioner on 4.4.2003 as
\nwell as the order dated 19.3.2003 is hereby quashed and the matter is
\nremanded back to the appropriate authority i.e. respondent no.2 to pass
\nappropriate orders in view of the observations made above taking into
\n                                                                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
consideration the Apex Court judgment        by giving reasons strictly in
\naccordance with law within a period of three months from the date of
\nproduction of certified copy of the order.\n<\/p>\n
      No order is passed as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
7.1.2010
\nV.Sri\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Dheeraj Kumar Sharma vs Central Bank Of India And Others on 7 January, 2010 Court No. 26 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18522 of 2003 Dheeraj Kumar Sharma Vs. Central Bank of India and others HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J. Heard Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.R.S. Jadaun, […]<\/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-174967","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDheeraj Kumar Sharma vs Central Bank Of India And Others on 7 January, 2010 - 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\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dheeraj Kumar Sharma vs Central Bank Of India And Others on 7 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-04T13:46:40+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dheeraj Kumar Sharma vs Central Bank Of India And Others on 7 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-04T13:46:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2486,\"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\\\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Dheeraj Kumar Sharma vs Central Bank Of India And Others on 7 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-04T13:46:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dheeraj Kumar Sharma vs Central Bank Of India And Others on 7 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":"Dheeraj Kumar Sharma vs Central Bank Of India And Others on 7 January, 2010 - 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\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dheeraj Kumar Sharma vs Central Bank Of India And Others on 7 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-04T13:46:40+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dheeraj Kumar Sharma vs Central Bank Of India And Others on 7 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-04T13:46:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010"},"wordCount":2486,"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\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010","name":"Dheeraj Kumar Sharma vs Central Bank Of India And Others on 7 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-04T13:46:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-kumar-sharma-vs-central-bank-of-india-and-others-on-7-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dheeraj Kumar Sharma vs Central Bank Of India And Others on 7 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\/174967","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=174967"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174967\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174967"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174967"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174967"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}