{"id":176516,"date":"1997-12-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-12-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997"},"modified":"2018-02-09T20:38:56","modified_gmt":"2018-02-09T15:08:56","slug":"the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997","title":{"rendered":"The State Bank Of India vs Shri C.B. Dhall on 11 December, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The State Bank Of India vs Shri C.B. Dhall on 11 December, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: D Wadhwa<\/div>\n
Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, D.P. Wadhwa<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE STATE BANK OF INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHRI C.B. DHALL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t11\/12\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nSUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nD.P. Wadhwa, J.\n<\/p>\n
     This appeal  by the State Bank of India (for short, the
\n‘Bank’ or  ‘State Bank’)  arises out  of the  judgment dated
\nAugust 22, 1983 of learned single Judge of the High Court of
\nDelhi. The  reasons for\t the judgment  were given  by  order
\ndated September 2, 1983. The impugned judgment was delivered
\non a  writ petition  filed by  the respondent,\tC.B.  Dhall.
\nDhall had  challenged the  Order of the Central Board of the
\nState Bank  dated June 4, 1980 by which it was resolved that
\n“the sanction  to retire  you be  withheld  and\t the  Bank’s
\ncontribution to your provident fund Account amounting to Rs.
\n24006-49 be  forfeited” which  decision was  communicated to
\nDhall by  letter dated\tJuly 16,  1980 of  the Chief General
\nManager of  the\t Bank.\tThe  High  Court  allowed  the\twrit
\npetition and  quashed the Resolution of the Central Board as
\nwell as the Communication by which it was conveyed to Dhall.
\nThe High  Court further\t ordered that  the  Bank  shall\t pay
\nwithin six weeks to Dhall the following amounts:\n<\/p>\n
     “1. The  entire arrears  of pension
\n     in\t regard\t  to  the   pension  and
\n     gratuity fund rules with interest @
\n     6% per annum.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2. Pension\t will be  paid in future
\n     in\t accordance   with  the\t  rules.
\n     Pension will  be  computed\t on  the
\n     basis of full pay during the period
\n     of suspension.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.\t The   provident  Fund\t (Bank’s
\n     contribution   which    has    been
\n     withheld) with  interest  according
\n     to the  Rules after  deducting  the
\n     admitted sum  of Rs.  10,000\/- P.F.
\n     and  the\tinterest  up-to-date  on
\n     payment according to the Rules will
\n     be calculated first. Thereafter the
\n     admitted  amount  of  Rs.\t10,000\/-
\n     will  be  deducted\t therefrom.  The
\n     balance  shall   be  paid\t to  the
\n     petitioner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4. The  petitioner\t shall\talso  be
\n     entitled to  such other  retirement
\n     benefits as  are admissible  to him
\n     according\tto  the\t service  rules,
\n     have already not been given to him.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5. Petitioner will also be entitled
\n     to\t full  pay  for\t the  period  of
\n     suspension and  the bank  shall pay
\n     the sum after deducting such amount
\n     as has  been paid to him during the
\n     period  of\t suspension  by\t way  of
\n     subsistence allowance or otherwise.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6. The petitioner shall be entitled
\n     to his costs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Counsel’s fee for Rs. 50\/-.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Dhall was\tappointed as Cashier in the Imperial Bank of
\nIndia in  July 1939  and was  confirmed to  this post  after
\ncompletion of  his period  of probation\t of  one  year.\t The
\nImperial Bank  of India\t was constituted  under the Imperial
\nBank of India Act, 1920 which was repealed by the State Bank
\nof India  Act, 1955 by which the State Bank was constituted.
\nServices of  Dhall were taken over by the State Bank and the
\nexisting Services  Rules, Pension  Fund Rules  and provident
\nFund Rules of the Imperial Bank of India were adopted by the
\nState Bank  in respect\tof these  employees. This  was under
\nSection 7  of the State Bank of India Act which, in relevant
\npart, is as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “7. Transfer of service of existing
\n     officers  and   employees\tof   the
\n     Imperial Bank  to the  State  Bank-
\n     (1)   “Every   officer   or   other
\n     employee  of   the\t Imperial   Bank
\n     (excepting\t the  managing\tdirector
\n     the deputy\t managing  director  and
\n     other directors)  in the employment
\n     of the  Imperial  bank  immediately
\n     before the\t appointed day\tshall on
\n     and from  the appointed day, become
\n     an officer\t or other  employee,  as
\n     the case may be, of the state Bank,
\n     and shall\thold his  tenure, at the
\n     same remuneration and upon the same
\n     terms and\tconditions and\twith the
\n     same rights  and privileges  as  to
\n     pension, gratuity and other matters
\n     as he  would have\theld the same on
\n     the   appointed\tday    if    the
\n     undertaking of  the  Imperial  Bank
\n     had not  vested in\t the State Bank,
\n     and shall\tcontinue to do so unless
\n     and until\this  employment\t in  the
\n     State Bank\t is terminated\tor until
\n     his    remuneration,    terms    or
\n     conditions are  duly altered by the
\n     State Bank.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)…………………………..
\n     …..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3)…………………………..
\n     …………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (4)…………………………..
\n     ……………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (5)…………………………..
\n     …………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (6)…………………………..
\n     …………….”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In July 1956, Dhall was promoted as Head Cashier by the
\nState Bank of India. The State Bank of India (Sub-Accountant
\n& Head Cashiers) Service Rules came into force on January 1,
\n1959. Under these Rules, the age of super annuation for head
\nCashier was  55 years  but w.e.f.  April 1,  1967, this\t was
\nincreased to  58 years.\t Dhall was  due to retire on May 28,
\n1970 after  completing\t30  years  of  pensionable  service.
\nHowever, the competent authority granted extension to him of
\nhis service  by seven years up to & including 30th June 1977
\non which  date Dhall  was to  completed 58 years of his age.
\nWhile in  he extended period of service, Dhall was suspended
\non account  of certain\tallegations against him of fraud and
\ndefalcation of funds while posted at Agra.\n<\/p>\n
     On November  24, 1975  Dhall was served with the Charge
\nSheet. The  charges laid  under this  Charge sheet were many
\nand some  of these  were (1)  shortage of admitted by Dhall,
\nthus, admitting\t his negligence\t and responsibility therefor
\ncollaterally; (2)  shortage in\tcash to\t the tune  of Rs. 1,
\n000\/- on  September 25, 1972; (3) exchanging mutilated noted
\nfor he\tdenomination of\t Rs. 5,\t Rs. 20\t and Rs. 100 without
\napproval of  the joint\tcustodian. The Reserve Bank of India
\nhad intimated the Bank that mutilated notes to the extent of
\nRs. 55,000\/-  were irregularly\texchanged and  that this was
\nborne out by the inspection of the currency at the branch at
\nAgra held  on August  11, 1976 which pertained to the period
\nwhen Dhall  was the  head Cashier.  Enquiry proceedings were
\ninitiated against Dhall. Dhall completed 58 years of his age
\non June\t 30, 1977.  However, due to the pendency of enquiry,
\nhe was given two years extension.\n<\/p>\n
     Report of the enquiry officer was submitted on June 15,
\n1979 which  was placed before the disciplinary Authority who
\nfound Dhall  guilty of\tmost of the charges levelled against
\nhim. Extended period of Service of Dhall expired on June 17,
\n1979 on\t his attaining\tthe age of 60 years. On November 22,
\n1979, he was intimated and given show cause notice as to why
\nBank’s contribution  to the  provident fund  should  not  be
\nforfeited as  he was liable to the Bank to the extent of Rs.
\n37458\/83 and  further why  sanction to his retirement be not
\nwithheld under Rule 11 of the Imperial Bank of India Pension
\nand Guarantee Fund Rules and Regulations. Reply of Dhall was
\nconsidered and\tthe  Central  Board  of\t the  Bank  directed
\nforfeiting of  Bank’s contribution  amounting to Rs.24006\/49
\nfrom the  provident fund.  Dhall was also told that sanction
\nto retire  him was  withheld under  Rule 11 of the Rules and
\nRegulations  of\t the  pension  and  Guarantee  Fund  by\t the
\ncompetent authority.  The result was that Dhall was deprived
\nof pension  and Bank’s\tcontribution to\t his provident fund.
\nThe show  cause notice\tand the\t decision of  the  Bank\t are
\nreproduced hereunder as:\n<\/p>\n
     “State Bank of India,
\n     Local Head Office,
\n     P.O. Box No. 398,
\n     11, Sansad Marg
\n     New Delhi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Disciplinary Action Cell
\n     No. DAC\/79\/RL\/1336
\n     Dated 22nd Nov. 1979.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n     Dear Sir,\n     With     reference\t     to\t     the\n<\/pre>\n
     correspondence  resting  with  your
\n     letter dated  29th\t June  1976,  in
\n     reply  to\t the  statement\t of  the
\n     charges served  on you, in terms of
\n     out letter\t No.  R.  IV\/8990  dated
\n     24th November  1975 and  subsequent
\n     departmental enquiry  held\t against
\n     you, we  have perused  the findings
\n     of the  enquiry authority vis-a-vis
\n     the proceedings  of the enquiry and
\n     “held you guilty of charges Nos. 1,
\n     2, 4,  5,\t6,  7,\t7a,  9,\t 10  and
\n     partially charge No.3.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2. With  reference to  your  letter
\n     dated 1st\tAugust, 1979  as charges
\n     proved against  are grave\tand  you
\n     attained the age of 60 years on the
\n     30th June, 1979 and ceased to be in
\n     the service  of the  Bank from that
\n     date, you\tare hereby  required  to
\n     show  cause  –  why  recommendation
\n     should not\t be made  to Local Board
\n     to withhold  the sanction\tof  your
\n     withhold  the   sanction  of   your
\n     retirement and  pension in the term
\n     of Rule  11 of the Imperial Bank of
\n     India Pension  and\t Guarantee  Fund
\n     rules. Please also show cause as to
\n     why the bank’s contribution towards
\n     the  provident   Fund  may\t not  be
\n     forfeited as  you are liable to the
\n     bank   to\t the   extend\tto   Rs.
\n     37,458\/83.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3. Your reply in this regard should
\n     reach the undersigned within 7 days
\n     of the  receipt of\t this letter  by
\n     you. Otherwise  it will be presumed
\n     that you  have nothing to submit in
\n     this regard  as  we  shall\t proceed
\n     accordingly.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Yours faithfully.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    Sd\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       “State Bank of India,
\n\t       Local Head Office,
\n\t       P.O. Box No. 398,
\n\t       11, Sansad Marg,
\n\t       New Delhi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     No. DAC
\n     Disciplinary action Cell
\n     Agra Branch
\n\t  Shri C.B. DHALL OFFICER GDE II
\n\t  H\/Cashier – Under suspension.
\n\t  With\tref.   to  your\t written
\n     statement dated 11.2.80, be advised
\n     considered\t  by\tthe    Executive
\n     committee of  the Central\tBoard at
\n     its meeting  held on  4.6.80 and it
\n     is resolved  that the  sanction  to
\n     retire  you  be  withheld\tand  the
\n     bank’s contribution  to your P.Fund
\n     a\/c  amount  to  Rs.  24,006\/49  be
\n     forfeited.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2. Therefore our tentative decision
\n     conveyed to  you  vide  letter  No.
\n     DAC\/79\/R-V\/1336 dated 23rd Nov. ’79
\n     is confirmed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Sd\/- Chief General Manager”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     When the  decision was  communicated to  Dhall,  he  as
\nnoted  above,\tfiled  the  writ  petition  challenging\t the
\ndecision of  the Bank.\tThe  High  Court  allowed  the\twrit
\npetition in  terms mentioned  above. Special  leave petition
\nfiled  by   the\t Bank  against\tthe  impugned  judgment\t was
\nadmitted.  On\tOctober\t 28,  1983,  the  Court\t passed\t the
\nfollowing order:\n<\/p>\n
     “Special\tleave\t granted.    The
\n     appellant however\tundertakes  that
\n     even  in\tthe  event   of\t success
\n     nothing will  be recovered from the
\n     respondent. The  judgment in appeal
\n     will not  be treated as a precedent
\n     for any  other  case.  Four  weeks’
\n     time is granted for payment.\n<\/p>\n
     Will be  listed for  final\t hearing
\n     along  with   SLP\tNo.  431\/81  (CA
\n     9943\/83).”\n<\/p>\n
     It may  be noted  that  SLP  (C)  No.  431\/81  (CA\t No.
\n2141\/80) entitled  State Bank  of India\t vs. A.N. Gupta<\/a> etc.
\nhas since  been decided and judgment is reported in 1997 (6)
\nSCALE 303.\n<\/p>\n
     In A.N.  Gupta’s case,  this court considered the scope
\nof Rule 11 of the Rules and Regulations of the Imperial Bank
\nof India  Pension and  Guarantee Fund  and Rule\t 20  of\t the
\nImperial Bank of India Employees provident Fund Rules. These
\nRules and  Rule 18  of the  Imperial Bank of India Employees
\nProvident Fund Rules are as under:\n<\/p>\n
     (1)  The  Imperial\t Bank  of  India
\n     Employees\tPension\t  and  Guarantee
\n     Fund (Rules and Regulations)
\n     “The retirement  of all officers of
\n     the Bank  shall be\t subject to  the
\n     sanction of the Executive Committee
\n     of\t  the\t Central   Board.    The
\n     retirement of  all other  employees
\n     of the Bank shall be subject to the
\n     sanction of the Executive Committee
\n     or the  Local Board  concerned with
\n     their employment.\tAny  officer  or
\n     other employee  who shall leave the
\n     service   without\t  sanction,   as
\n     required by this rule shall forfeit
\n     all  claim\t  upon\tthe   fund   for
\n     pension.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  The  Imperial\t Bank  of  India
\n     Employees Provident Fund Rules
\n     “18.  If\tany  member   shall   be
\n     dismissed from  the service  of the
\n     Bank for  any fault  or other cause
\n     justifying dismissal,  he shall not
\n     be\t entitled   to\treceive,  unless
\n     permitted to do so by the trustees,
\n     the sums contributed. Provided that
\n     when any member is so dismissed any
\n     amount  due   under   a   liability
\n     incurred by  the member to the Bank
\n     (not exceeding in any case the sums
\n     so\t contributed  by  the  Bank  and
\n     interest thereon)\tshall be paid by
\n     the trustees to the Bank out of the
\n     sum standing  to the  credit of the
\n     member’s account.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     20.  When\t a  member   resigns  or
\n     retires from  the\tservice\t of  the
\n     Bank he shall, if he has served the
\n     bank for  a period of five years or
\n     more  (including\tservice\t in  the
\n     Presidency Banks),\t be entitled  to
\n     receive the  balance at  his credit
\n     in the fund. Provided that when any
\n     member resigning  or retiring  from
\n     the service  of the Bank is under a
\n     liability incurred\t by him\t to  the
\n     Bank,    the     trustees\t  shall,
\n     irrespective of the duration of his
\n     service, pay to the Bank out of the
\n     balance at\t his credit  in the fund
\n     any amount\t due by\t him to the Bank
\n     (not exceeding in any case the sums
\n     contributed  by  the  Bank\t to  his
\n     account  in   the\tfund   and   any
\n     interest credited to his account on
\n     the sums so contributed).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This Court\t held that Rule 11 had no application in the
\ncase of the employees governed by the Imperial Bank of India
\nPension\t and   Guarantee  Fund\tRules  who  had\t retired  on
\nattaining the age of superannuation. The Court did not agree
\nwith  the   submission\tof  the\t Bank  that  sanctioning  of
\nretirement must\t be understood\tas  sanctioning\t of  service
\nwhich in  term must be understood as approval of service. It
\nwas observed  that proceedings\tin the\tgarb of disciplinary
\nproceedings could  not be  permitted after  an employee\t had
\nceased to  be in  the service  of the  Bank as Service Rules
\nthen in\t force applicable  to such employees did not provide
\nfor continuation  of disciplinary proceedings after the date
\nof superannuation and that sanction of the Bank was required
\nonly if\t the retirement\t of an\temployee was  by  any  other
\nmethod except  superannuation. As  regards Rule\t 20  of\t the
\nImperial bank  of India Employees Provident Fund Rules, this
\nCourt took  this view that this Rule would become applicable
\nonly if\t an employee  retiring from  the service of the Bank
\nwas under  a liability\tincurred by  him to  the Bank and in
\nthat case,  trustees administering  the provident Fund could
\npay to\tthe bank  from balance to the credit of the employee
\nin the\tFund any  amount due  by him  to the bank. The Court
\nobserved that  there was  nothing on  record to\t show if any
\nliability was  incurred by  any of the respondents and if so
\nwhat were the amounts and then said as under:\n<\/p>\n
     ” In  this view of the matter we do
\n     not think it is necessary for us to
\n     go into  the question as to whether
\n     the  term\t “liability  incurred  ”
\n     means only\t such  liability  as  is
\n     either not\t disputed or established
\n     by due process. Can it be said that
\n     this term\twould also  include  any
\n     liability that  may be  alleged  by
\n     the bank?\tIn  any\t case  the  bank
\n     should   at   least   prima   facie
\n     establish that  any  liability  has
\n     been incurred  by the  employee for
\n     which  it\tcan  lay  claim\t to  the
\n     provident Fund  of the employee. We
\n     cannot accept  the\t proposition  on
\n     behalf  of\t  the  Bank   that   the
\n     trustees  should\tbe  allowed   to
\n     withhold  the  provident  Fund  due
\n     till they\thave had  an opportunity
\n     to have  established and determined
\n     the amount,  if any,  due from  the
\n     respondents to  the Bank. We are of
\n     the view  that the\t respondents are
\n     entitled to  the Provident Fund due
\n     to\t them  in  accordance  with  the
\n     provident Fund  Rules as  it cannot
\n     be\t said  that  they  incurred  any
\n     liability.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This Court\t did not  approve the  view expressed by the
\nAndhra Pradesh\thigh Court  in T.  Narsiah vs. State Bank of
\nIndia & Ors. [1978 (2) LLJ 173]\t   wherein  the\t High  Court
\nwas of\tthe view  that enquiry could also be made against an
\nemployee after\this  retirement\t on  attaining\tthe  age  of
\nsuperannuation. This  Court said  that\tby  giving  such  an
\ninterpretation to Rule 11, the High Court had, in fact, lent
\nvalidity to disciplinary proceeding against an employee even
\nafter his  superannuation for  which  no  provision  existed
\neither in  the relevant\t  Pension  Rules or  in the relevant
\nService Rules  and when\t the High  Court had itself observed
\nthat an\t enquiry even if initiated during the service period
\nof the\temployee could not be continued after his retirement
\non superannuation.  In coming to the conclusion that Rule 11
\nwould not  be applicable  when an  employee superannuates on
\nhis attaining  the age\tof retirement, this Court considered
\nvarious relevant  pension Rules\t and Service  Rules  of\t the
\nImperial Bank.\n<\/p>\n
     Later on  it would\t appear Rule 228 was inserted in the
\nImperial Bank  of India\t Pension and  Guarantee\t fund  Rules
\nwhich postulates  continuance  of  disciplinary\t proceedings
\neven after  an employee ceases to be in Bank’s service. This
\nRule 22B  (to be  read as  Rule 22A  as per  the  additional
\naffidavit filed\t by the\t bank) came  into force\t with effect
\nfrom June  25, 1987 and would, therefore, be not relevant in
\nthe present case.\n<\/p>\n
     The question  then arises what are the Rules of service
\napplicable in  the case of Dhall. Mr. Dogra, learned counsel
\nfor the\t Bank, submitted  that Rules  20A and 20B which were
\ninserted in  the State\tBank of\t India\t(Supervising  Staff)
\nService Rules,\t1975 (for  short “Service  Rules”) would  be
\nanswer to  that. Rules\t20A and\t 20B  were  introduced\twith
\neffect from April 1,1977 and are as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “20A. Notwithstanding  anything  to
\n     the contrary  in  these  rules,  no
\n     employee who  has ceased  to be  in
\n     the Bank’s service by the operation
\n     of ,  or by  virtue of,  any  rule,
\n     shall be  deemed  to  have\t retired
\n     form the  Bank’s\tservice for  the
\n     purpose for  the Imperial\tBank  of
\n     India   Employees’\t   Pension   and
\n     Guarantee Fund  Rules or  the State
\n     Bank of  India  Employees’\t Pension
\n     Fund Rules unless such cessation of
\n     service  has   been  sanctioned  as
\n     retirement\t for   the  purpose   of
\n     either of\tthe  said  pension  fund
\n     rules as may be applicable to him.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     20B.    In\t    Case    disciplinary
\n     proceedings under\tthese rules have
\n     been initiated  against an employee
\n     before  he\t ceases\t to  be\t in  the
\n     Bank’s service by the operation of,
\n     or\t by  virtue  of,  any  of  these
\n     rules, the disciplinary proceedings
\n     may,  at\tthe  discretion\t of  the
\n     Managing Director, be continued and
\n     concluded by the authority by which
\n     the proceedings  were initiated  in
\n     the  manner  provided  for\t the  in
\n     these  rules  as  if  the\temployee
\n     continues\tto  be\tin  service,  so
\n     however, that he shall be deemed to
\n     be in  service only for the purpose
\n     of the  continuance and  conclusion
\n     of such proceedings.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We asked  Mr. Dogra  if the services of Dhall, the Head
\nCashier, were  governed by  the State  Bank of\tIndia  (Sub-
\nAccountants and\t Head Cashiers)\t Service  Rules\t as  Rule  2
\ntherein provided  that the  Rules shall\t apply to  all\tSub-
\nAccountants and\t head Cashiers who are in the service of the
\nBank as\t such on  January 1, 1959 and to all Sub-Accountants
\nand Head  Cashiers  appointed  thereafter.  Mr.\t Dogra\twith
\nreference to  the additional  affidavit filed  by  the\tBank
\nsubmitted that State Bank of India (sub-Accountants and head
\nCashiers) Service  Rules, 1959\twere no\t longer in  force as
\nthey were  repealed in\tterms of Rule 2(1) of the State Bank
\nof India  Supervising Staff  (Service Rules),  of the  State
\nBank of\t India Supervising Staff (Service Rules), 1975. Said
\nRule 2(1)  states that\tthe Service  Rules which  came\tinto
\nforce with  effect from\t July  1,1975  shall  apply  to\t all
\nofficers\/staff officers\t and senior  staff officers  in\t the
\nBank other  than persons who were in the service of the Bank
\non June\t 30,1955 either as officers or as assistants. It was
\nsubmitted by  Mr. Dogra that Dhall was a Cashier on June 30,
\n1955 and was not an officer. he was also not an Assistant to
\nbe  governed   by  the\t Rules\tgoverning  the\tservices  of
\nAssistants in  the Bank.  Dhall was promoted as head Cashier
\nin July\t 1956 under  Rule 3(p)\tof the\tService Rules.\thead
\nCashier is  a person  appointed on  the terms and conditions
\napplicable to officers Grade ii and as per the definition of
\nofficer under  Rule 3(j), officer means an officer Grade II.
\nDhall would,  therefore, be  an officer\t under\tthe  Service
\nRules,\tState\tbank  of  India\t (Sub-Accountants  and\tHead
\nCashiers) Service Rules, 1959 would, therefore, be no longer
\nin force  as these  would deem to have been repealed by Rule
\n2(1) of\t the Service  Rules which  states that these Service
\nRules shall apply to all officers, staff officers and Senior
\nStaff Officers\tin the\tbank other  than persons who were in
\nthe service  of the  Bank on  the 30th\tJune, 1955 either as
\nofficers or  as Assistants.  Consequently,  Dhall  would  be
\ngoverned by  Rules 20A\tand 20B\t of the\t Service Rules which
\ncame into effect from April 1,1977.\n<\/p>\n
     There is  no dispute  that the employees who are in the
\nservice of  the Bank as on 30th June, 1955 would continue to
\nbe governed  by the Imperial Bank of India Rules relating to
\npension and  provident Fund and those joining the Bank after
\nthis data  by the  Rules of  the State\tbank of India framed
\nunder Section  50 of  the State\t bank of  India Act. In this
\nconnection we may also refer to Rule 21 of the Service Rules
\nof 1975 which is as under:\n<\/p>\n
     ” 21.  Unless Otherwise directed by
\n     the  Appointing   Authority,  every
\n     employee\tshall\t as   from   the
\n     commencement of  his service  as an
\n     officer become a member of-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  the\tState  bank   of   India
\n     Employees Provident  Fund, if he is
\n     not already  a member  of that Fund
\n     or\t the   Imperial\t bank  of  India
\n     Employee’s Provident Fund:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  the\tState  Bank   Of   India
\n     Employees’ pension\t Fund, if  he is
\n     not already  a member  of that Fund
\n     or\t the   imperial\t bank  of  India
\n     Employees’\t Pension  and  Guarantee
\n     Fund  or\tthe   bank   of\t  Bombay
\n     Officers’\tpensions  and  Guarantee
\n     Fund or  the bank of Madras pension
\n     and Gratuity Fund:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     and shall\tsubscribed and\tagree to
\n     be bound  by  the\trules  of  those
\n     Funds.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Provided that  if his  age at   the
\n     time of commencement of his service
\n     as Officer\t is below  21  years  he
\n     shall become  a member of the State
\n     bank of  India  Employees’\t Pension
\n     Fund on  attaining the  age  of  21
\n     years  and\t on  becoming  a  member
\n     shall subscribe  and  agree  to  be
\n     bound by  the rules  of that Fund.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Rules 20-A\t and 20-B  of the  Service Rules  have\tbeen
\nframed under Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act. This
\nsection is as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “43.   State   bank   may\t appoint
\n     officers any  other employees-  (1)
\n     The State\tbank  may  appoint  such
\n     number of\tofficers,  advisers  and
\n     employees as it considers necessary
\n     or\t desirable   for  the  efficient
\n     performance of  its functions,  and
\n     determine the  terms and conditions
\n     of their appointment and service.
\n     (2)  The\tofficers,  advisers  and
\n     employees of  the State  Bank shall
\n     exercise such  powers  and\t perform
\n     such duties lies may, by general or
\n     special  order   be  entrusted   or
\n     delegated to  them by  the\t Central
\n     Board.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 43\t empowered the\tState bank  to determine the
\nterms and  conditions of  the appointment and service of its
\nofficers  and\temployees.  These   officers  and  employees
\nexercise such  powers and  perform such\t duties\t as  may  be
\nentrusted or  delegated to  them by the Central board of the
\nState Bank.  Section 50\t of the\t State\tBank  of  India\t Act
\nempowers the  Central Board  to make regulations but Section
\n43 is  independent of Section 50, we hold that Service Rules
\nhad been  framed by  the  State\t bank  in  exercise  of\t its
\nstatutory powers under Section 43 of the State Bank of India
\nRules.\n<\/p>\n
     Rules 20-A and 20-B have now made a material difference
\nto the\tapplicability of  Rule\t11  of\tthe  pension  Rules.
\nHowever, the  case of  A.N. Gupta (Supra) is distinguishable
\nas these  Rules, 20-A  and 20-B,  came into  existence\tonly
\nw.e.f. March  31, 1977. Under Rule 20-A retirement under the
\nPension Fund Rules has now to be sanctioned by the competent
\nauthority. Under this Rule, retirement would mean retirement
\non superannuation or any other type of retirement.\n<\/p>\n
     Under Rule\t 20-B disciplinary  proceedings if initiated
\nagainst an  employee before he retires from service could be
\ncontinued and  concluded even  after his  retirement and for
\nthe purpose  of conclusion  of the disciplinary proceedings,
\nthe employees is deemed to have continued in service but for
\nno other  purpose. After  the disciplinary  proceedings, the
\nemployee is  deemed to have continued  in service but for no
\nother  purpose.\t After\tthe  disciplinary  proceedings\twere
\nconcluded, the\tState Bank  directed that  (1)\tsanction  of
\nDhall to  retire be  withheld and (2) Bank’s contribution to
\nhis provident  fund accounts  be forfeited. Under Rule 10 of
\nthe Pension Fund Rules, and employee dismissed from the Bank
\nService for  willful neglect  or  fraud\t shall\tforfeit\t all
\nclaims upon  the  fund\tfor  pension.  Dhall  has  not\tbeen
\ndismissed from\tservice through\t he was charged with willful
\nneglect\t and   fraud.\tThe   question\t that\tarises\t for
\nconsideration is  what is  the effect  of the  direction the
\nState bank  that sanction  to retire  of Dhall\tbe withheld.
\nHere cessation\tof service  of Dhall  on retirement  has not
\nbeen sanctioned\t accordingly as per the last portion of Rule
\n11 of  the pension Fund he forfeits all claims upon the Fund
\nfor pension.\n<\/p>\n
     But then  applicability  of  his  Rule  11\t has  to  be
\ncontrasted with\t Rule 10. It is only if an employee has been
\ndismissed from\tservice that he forfeits all claims upon the
\nfund for  pension and  so would\t appear to  be the effect of
\nRule 11.  Under Rule 7, an employee has right of property in
\nthe pension  fund to  the extent  of his  contribution\tmade
\nthereof with  interest thereon.\t It would, therefore, appear
\nto us  that when  the Rules talk of forfeiture of all claims
\nupon the  fund for  pension that  would only mean the Bank’s
\ncontribution and  the interest accruing thereon. These Rules
\ncannot\tbe   extended  to   forfeit  event   eh\t  employee’s
\ncontribution to\t the pension  fund and the interest accruing
\nthereon. However,  after the introduction of Rule 5-A in the
\npension Fund  Rules w.e.f. April 1, 1968, there is not to be
\nany contribution by employee to the pension fund.\n<\/p>\n
     Coming to\tthe provident  Fund Rules,  Rule 18  applies
\nwhen an\t employee is dismissed from service which is not the
\ncase here.  It is  under Rule  20  that\t an  amount  of\t Rs.
\n24,006,49  has\t been  forfeited   which   is\tthe   Bank’s
\ncontribution to\t the provident\tfund account of Dhall. This,
\nthe State  Bank is  entitled to\t forfeit under\tRule 20. The
\namount has  been arrived at after due enquiry and represents
\nthe liability  incurred by Dhall to the Bank. Accordingly we
\nhold  that  Dhall  was\trightly\t proceeded  against  in\t the
\ndisciplinary proceedings  and the  State bank was within its
\nauthority to  impose the  penalty as  conveyed to  Dhall  by
\nletter dated  July 16,\t1980 of the Chief General Manager of
\nthe State Bank.\n<\/p>\n
     We, therefore, uphold the impugned judgment of the High
\nCourt to  the extent  that Dhall  would be  entitled to\t his
\ncontribution, if  any, to  the pension\tFound along with the
\ninterest accrued thereon. The impugned judgment in all other
\nrespects is  set aside.\t However, in  view  of\tthe  interim
\norders made  on October\t 28, 1983,  no\tfurther\t orders\t are
\nrequired in this appeal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The State Bank Of India vs Shri C.B. Dhall on 11 December, 1997 Author: D Wadhwa Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, D.P. Wadhwa PETITIONER: THE STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI C.B. DHALL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/12\/1997 BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-176516","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Bank Of India vs Shri C.B. Dhall on 11 December, 1997 - 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\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Bank Of India vs Shri C.B. Dhall on 11 December, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-09T15:08:56+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Bank Of India vs Shri C.B. Dhall on 11 December, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-09T15:08:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997\"},\"wordCount\":4329,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997\",\"name\":\"The State Bank Of India vs Shri C.B. Dhall on 11 December, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-09T15:08:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Bank Of India vs Shri C.B. Dhall on 11 December, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"The State Bank Of India vs Shri C.B. Dhall on 11 December, 1997 - 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\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Bank Of India vs Shri C.B. Dhall on 11 December, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-09T15:08:56+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Bank Of India vs Shri C.B. Dhall on 11 December, 1997","datePublished":"1997-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-09T15:08:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997"},"wordCount":4329,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997","name":"The State Bank Of India vs Shri C.B. Dhall on 11 December, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-09T15:08:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-c-b-dhall-on-11-december-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Bank Of India vs Shri C.B. Dhall on 11 December, 1997"}]},{"@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\/176516","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=176516"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176516\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176516"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176516"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176516"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}