{"id":188863,"date":"2011-01-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011"},"modified":"2018-12-17T08:07:26","modified_gmt":"2018-12-17T02:37:26","slug":"ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Prasad Tihaiya vs The M.P.High Court Th: R.G. & Anr on 11 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Ramesh Prasad Tihaiya vs The M.P.High Court Th: R.G. & Anr on 11 January, 2011<\/div>\n
                                      1\n\n      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR\n\n(D.B.: HON. SHRI KRISHNA KUMAR LAHOTI & HON. SMT. SUSHMA SHRIVASTAVA J.J.)\n\n\n                   WRIT PETITION NO. 4126\/97\n                            Ramesh Prasad Tihaiya\n\n                                          Vs.\n                   Madhya Pradesh High Court & another\n ---------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Shri K.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate with Shri Amresh Mishra, Advocate for\n the petitioner.\n Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Manoj Kumar Jha,\n Advocate for respondent no.1.\n Shri Vivek Agrawal, Govt. Advocate for respondent no.2.\n ---------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                              ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
 Per Smt. Sushma Shrivastava J.\n<\/p>\n
              This is a writ petition challenging the order (Annexure P-20)
\n dated 20.08.96 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh on its
\n administrative   side,   imposing   punishment    of   withholding   of   two
\n increments without cumulative effect on the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
 2.           Petitioner is a judicial officer. He was appointed as a
\n Civil Judge Class-II vide order dated 13.6.75; he was promoted as
\n Additional District Judge in due course and joined as Additional District
\n Judge, Rewa as per order dated 14.6.89.         While posted as Additional
\n District Judge, Manendragarh, District Sarguja, disciplinary proceedings
\n were initiated against the petitioner and a departmental inquiry was
\n conducted against him in respect of three charges. A charge-sheet was
\n served on the petitioner on 15.11.94 by Madhya Pradesh High Court on
\n administrative side (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’), alongwith
\n the article of charges, statements of imputations, list of witnesses and list
\n of documents.    After submission of reply by the petitioner, District and
\n Sessions Judge, Ambikapur was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who after
\n completing the inquiry, submitted his report to the High Court.           The
\n Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of all the charges, but the High
\n Court had not agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer with regard
\n to charge no.1 against the petitioner. Article of charge no.1 related to an
\n order (Annexure P-24) passed by the petitioner as an Additional Sessions
\n Judge, Manendragarh, District Sarguja on 30.09.93 in S.T. No.213\/93
\n                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
(State Vs. Omprakash), whereby he discharged the accused despite there
\nbeing sufficient material for framing of charge under Section 302 of IPC,
\ncontrary to the settled principle of law that the evidence could not be
\nassessed while framing of charge, which was an act of grave misconduct.\n<\/p>\n
3.           The     High    Court   disagreeing    with   the   finding    of   the
\nEnquiry Officer with regard to the aforesaid article of charge no.1,
\nreversed the finding for the reasons recorded by it and found that the
\npetitioner was guilty of aforesaid charge no.1 and a show cause notice
\nwas issued to the petitioner on 1.6.96 as to why the finding recored by
\nthe High Court with regard to the charge no.1 should not be accepted
\nand why he should not be punished for the same. The petitioner filed his
\nreply dated 29.6.96 vide Annexure P-19 to the High Court and prayed for
\nhis   exoneration.     The    High   Court   by    its   order   dated     20.08.96
\n(Annexure P-20) imposed punishment of withholding of two increments
\nwithout cumulative effect on the petitioner, as specified in Rule 10(4) of
\nM.P. Civil Services Control and Appeal Rules, 1966. The administrative
\nappeal (Annexure P-21) filed by the petitioner under Rule 23\/29 of M.P.
\nCivil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 was also
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
4.           The writ petition is preferred inter alia on the ground that
\nthe judicial order (Annexure P-24) passed by the petitioner dated
\n30.09.93 in S.T.No.213\/93 as Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh,
\nDistrict Sarguja does not provide any factual basis for imputation of any
\nmisconduct and misbehaviour against the petitioner.               The petitioner
\npassed a judicial order, which was not legally challenged by anybody in
\nany manner, neither by Police or the prosecution, nor by any relative of
\nthe deceased and even the High Court had not acted suo-moto to revise
\nthe order when it came to its notice.        The petitioner passed a judicial
\norder (Annexure P-24) as judicial officer on the basis of records of the
\ncase, and the documents filed by prosecution in the Court under Section
\n173 of the Cr.P.C. did not make out any eyewitness account of the case;
\neven the possibility of forming a different opinion on the material
\navailable in the case by itself could not form the basis of imputing
\nmisconduct on the petitioner or for initiating a disciplinary proceeding.
\nThere was no evidence to the fact that the order (Annexure P-24) passed
\nby the petitioner was actuated by any motive, nor an error or even gross
\nerror in writing the order by itself is enough to attribute the improper
\nmotive or misconduct to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
5.            According to petitioner, on account of the pendency of
\ndepartmental inquiry and consequent punishment imposed on the
\npetitioner, his claim for grant of selection grade as Member of Higher
\nJudicial Service in Madhya Pradesh has been rejected, as communicated
\nto him by District and Sessions Judge, Shahdol vide Annexue P-23 and
\nthe junior members of the Higher Judicial Services have been promoted
\nto the selection grade ignoring the claim of the petitioner.               Petitioner,
\ntherefore,    prayed      that   the   order    (Annexure    P-20)    imposing    the
\npunishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect
\non him and the order (Annexure P-23) regarding his unsuitability for
\ngrant of Selection Grade be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari and
\nthe petitioner be granted consequential reliefs and the benefits, of which
\nhe has been deprived on account of order-Annexure P-20.\n<\/p>\n
6.            In the return filed by High Court\/respondent no.1, it has
\nbeen contended that the report of the Enquiry Officer is not binding on
\nthe disciplinary authority; the disciplinary authority has jurisdiction under
\nlaw to arrive at its own conclusion with regard to the guilt by examination
\nof material on record, which has been done.               The petitioner was given
\ndue opportunity of hearing to show cause against disagreement of the
\ndisciplinary authority with the finding of Enquiry Officer and thereby he
\nwas granted full opportunity of hearing. After due consideration of the
\nmaterial on record in the form of oral and documentary evidence,
\ncircumstances appearing against the petitioner and culpable negligence of
\nthe petitioner indicating deliberate act of discharge of the accused,
\ndisciplinary authority recorded the finding that the act of the petitioner in
\ndischarging the accused was actuated by corrupt and improper motive.
\nThere was no violation of principle of natural justice or any other illegality
\nor irregularity in holding inquiry, the finding recorded by the disciplinary
\nauthority not being perverse and based on preponderance of probability,
\nmay not be interfered with in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction
\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mere non-challenge of the
\norder passed by the petitioner in the superior court does not create any
\nlegal   bar   to   hold    any   disciplinary    action   against    the   petitioner.
\nSufficiency of the material or otherwise cannot be gone into in a petition
\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it cannot be treated as
\nan appeal to the Appellate Authority.             Standard of proof required in
\ndisciplinary cases is not as strict as required in criminal cases.                The
\n                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner was afforded full opportunity of hearing and no interference is
\ncalled for. Petitioner is not entitled to any relief claimed in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
7.           We have heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submitted that the
\njudicial order passed by the petitioner could not form the basis of
\npunishing him in the disciplinary proceedings, particularly when there was
\nno proof that the judicial order (Annexure P-24) passed by the petitioner
\nwas actuated by any corrupt or improper motive and the same was never
\ncalled in question by either party by way of an appeal or revision and
\nnone was aggrieved by it. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
\nurged that an error in the order or possibility of arriving at a different
\nconclusion cannot be a ground to indict a judicial officer for taking one
\nview, and to attribute misconduct or corrupt motive. Reliance was placed
\non the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the case of P.C. Joshi Vs.
\nState of U.P. and others reported in AIR 2001 Surpeme Court page
\n2788 and Ramesh Chander Singh Vs. High Court of Allahabad &
\nanother reported in (2007)4 Supreme Court Cases page 247.\n<\/p>\n
8.           Learned counsel for the High Court\/respondent no.1, on the
\nother hand, submitted that even a judicial order passed by a judicial
\nofficer, if it suffers from illegality or is actuated by malice and bias, can
\nform the basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings.         Relying on a
\njudgment of the Apex Court rendered by its three Judges’ Bench in the
\ncase of Union of India & others Vs. K.K. Dhawan reported in (1993)2
\nSupreme Court Cases page 56 learned counsel for respondent no.1
\nvehemently urged that there is no legal bar in initiating disciplinary
\nproceedings against a judicial officer on the basis of a judicial order
\npassed by him.     He mainly referred to para 26 of the judgment in the
\naforesaid case, wherein the Apex Court reiterated the legal position
\nenunciated in its earlier decision in the case of Union of India Vs. A.N.
\nSaxena reported in (1992)3 Supreme Court Cases page 124 as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
                       “In our view, an argument that no
\n                 disciplinary action can be taken in regard to
\n                 actions taken or purported to be done in the
\n                 course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings
\n                 is not correct. It is true that when an officer is
\n                 performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions
\n                 disciplinary proceedings regarding any of his
\n                 actions in the course of such proceedings
\n                 should be taken only after great caution and a
\n                 close scrutiny of his actions and only if the
\n                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
                 circumstances so warrant. The initiation of
\n                 such proceedings, it is true, is likely to shake
\n                 the confidence of the public in the officer
\n                 concerned and also if lightly taken likely to
\n                 undermine his independence. Hence, the need
\n                 for extreme care and caution before initiation
\n                 of disciplinary proceedings against an officer
\n                 performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions
\n                 in respect of his actions in the discharge or
\n                 purported to discharge his functions. But it is
\n                 not as if such action cannot be taken at
\n                 all. Where the actions of such an officer
\n                 indicate culpability, namely a desire to oblige
\n                 himself or unduly favour one of the parties or
\n                 an improper motive there is no reason
\n                 why disciplinary action should not be
\n                 taken.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.           Learned counsel for the High Court\/respondent no.1 also
\nsubmitted that the legal position laid down in the case of K.K. Dhawan
\n(supra) has not been upset by the Apex Court in its later decision
\nrendered by the Bench of the equal strength in the case of Ramesh
\nChander Singh (supra), cited by learned counsel for the petitioner; on
\nthe other hand, it transpires from the following observations made by
\ntheir Lordships in para 11 of the judgment in Ramesh Chander’s case
\n(supra) that disciplinary proceedings can be based on a judicial order, if
\nthere are grounds to suspect officer’s bonafides and the order itself is
\nactuated by malice or illegality:-\n<\/p>\n
                     “If the High Court were to initiate
\n                 disciplinary proceedings based on a judicial
\n                 order, there should have been strong grounds
\n                 to suspect officer’s bonafides and the order
\n                 itself should have been actuated by malice,
\n                 bias or illegality.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.          Learned    counsel      for       High   Court\/respondent   no.1   also
\nsubmitted that since there was no reference to K.K. Dhawan’s case
\n(supra) in the later decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of
\nRamesh Chander’s case (supra), the legal position as enunciated in its
\nearlier decision in K.K. Dhawan’s case (supra) shall still have a binding
\nforce.\n<\/p>\n
11.          Learned counsel for the High Court\/respondent no.1 further
\nsubmitted that any violation of principle of justice or any illegality or
\nirregularity in holding the enquiry was nowhere alleged in the writ
\npetition; the disciplinary authority had recorded reasons for dissenting
\nfrom the findings of the Enquiry Officer with regard to article of charge
\n                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
no.1 and a show-cause notice was also issued to the petitioner in this
\nregard; as such the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority cannot
\nbe interfered with in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under
\nArticle 226 of the Constitution.   Reliance was placed in this regard on the
\ntwo decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Union of India
\nand others Vs. Upendra Singh (1994)3 Supreme Court Cases page
\n357 and High Court of Judicature At Bombay through Registrar Vs.
\nShashikant S. Patil and another reported in (2000)1 Supreme Court
\ncases page 416.       Attention was drawn particularly to the following
\nobservations made by their Lordships in para 17 of the judgment in the
\ncase of Shashikant Patil (supra), wherein the Apex Court reiterated the
\nlegal position laid down in the case of State of A.P. Vs. S. Sree Rama
\nRao (AIR 1963 Surpeme Court page 1723) thus:-\n<\/p>\n
                        “The High Court is not constituted in a
\n                proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution
\n                as a Court of appeal over the decision of the
\n                authorities   holding    departmental      enquiry
\n                against a public servant: it is concerned to
\n                determine whether the enquiry is held by an
\n                authority competent in that behalf and
\n                according to the procedure prescribed in that
\n                behalf and whether the rules of natural justice
\n                are not violated. Whether there is some
\n                evidence, which the authority entrusted with
\n                the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and
\n                which evidence may reasonably support the
\n                conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of
\n                the charge, it is not the function of the High
\n                Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226
\n                to review the evidence and to arrive at an
\n                independent finding on the evidence.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.          Lastly, learned counsel for the High Court\/respondent no.1
\nsubmitted that the report of the Enquiry Officer was not binding on the
\ndisciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority was empowered
\nunder law to disagree with any of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and
\ncould record its own findings and therefore, the action taken by the
\ndisciplinary authority after issuance of a show cause notice to the
\npetitioner and consequent imposition of penalty on him, did not call for
\nany interference in the writ jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
13.          We have considered the rival submissions of the learned
\ncounsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
14.          There can be no dispute to the legal proposition that the
\ndisciplinary authority can disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer
\n                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
on any article of charge and can record its own finding on the said charge
\nafter recording the reasons for its disagreement. Rule 15 Sub Rule 2 of
\nthe M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966
\nalso provides the same, which reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
                       “The disciplinary authority shall, if it
\n                   disagrees with the findings of the inquiring
\n                   authority on any article of charge, record its
\n                   reasons for such disagreement and record
\n                   its own finding on such charge, if the
\n                   evidence on record is sufficient for the
\n                   purpose.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
15.          The Apex Court in its three Judges’ Bench decision rendered
\nin the case of Shashikant S. Patil (supra) also held that the findings of
\nthe Enquiry Officer are not binding on the disciplinary authority as the
\ndecision-making authority is the punishing authority and, therefore, that
\nauthority can come to its own conclusion and it is also not necessary that
\nthe disciplinary authority should discuss the materials in detail and
\ncontest the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer.\n<\/p>\n
16.          A perusal of show cause notice (Annexure P-17) dated
\n1.6.1996 issued by the High Court\/disciplinary authority to the petitioner
\nreveals that it contained elaborate reasons for disagreement with the
\nfinding of the Enquiry Officer, as to article of charge no.1, also indicating
\nthat there was sufficient material on record, and the case diary
\nstatements of witnesses disclosed prima facie case for framing of a
\ncharge under Section 302 of IPC against the accused in S.T. No.213\/93.
\nThus it is manifest that the High Court reversed the finding of the
\nEnquiry Officer with regard to article of charge no.1, which related to
\ndischarge   of   the   accused   under   Section   302    of    IPC   by   the
\npetitioner\/Judicial Officer, after recording reasons on the basis of the
\nmaterial available on record and recorded its own findings against the
\npetitioner finding him guilty for charge no.1.\n<\/p>\n
17.          On perusal of the judicial order in question (Annexure P-24)
\ndated 30.9.93 passed by the petitioner in S.T.No.213\/93 discharging the
\naccused under Section 302 IPC, we find that it is a detailed order wherein
\nthe petitioner has assessed and evaluated the evidence in detail as if he
\nwas writing a judgment of acquittal and has gone even to the extent of
\nassigning some hypothetical reasons for discharging the accused, which
\nwas not warranted at the stage of framing of charge.           The law is well
\nsettled that at the stage of framing of charge the Court is not to see
\n                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or
\nwhether trial is sure to end in his conviction. The Apex Court in the case
\nof State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh reported in AIR 1977 Supreme
\nCourt page 2018(1), has observed that if there is a strong suspicion
\nagainst the accused at the initial stage of framing of charge, which leads
\nthe Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused
\nhas committed an offence, in that event it is not open to the Court to say
\nthat there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
18.            In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the judicial order
\n(Annexure P-24) passed by the petitioner in S.T.No.213\/93 discharging
\nthe accused under Section 302 of IPC by weighing and evaluating the
\nevidence and considering the possibility of his innocence, suffered from
\npatent illegality, being contrary to the settled principle of law and thus
\ncould form the basis of disciplinary proceedings in view of the legal
\nposition enunciated in K.K. Dhawan’s case (supra) as well as in the case
\nof Ramesh Chander (supra). we are, therefore, unable to accept the
\nsubmission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the judicial order in
\nquestion (Annexure P-24) could not form the basis for initiating
\ndepartmental enquiry against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
19.            In   view   of   factual       and   legal   position   as   described
\nhereinabove, it was competent for the disciplinary authority, i.e.
\nHigh Court, to take a dissenting view from the findings of Enquiry Officer
\nand to record its own finding on the basis of material available.               Mere
\nnon-challenge of the order in question by way of appeal or revision or
\nsuo-moto revision, could not be an impediment in taking disciplinary
\naction against the petitioner on the basis of an order, which was patently
\nillegal.   As said hereinabove, a show cause notice was issued by the
\ndisciplinary authority to the petitioner vide Annexure P-17 in respect of
\nthe disagreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and recording its
\nown finding of guilt against the petitioner in respect of the article of
\ncharge no.1, as also proposing the penalty; as such it could not be said
\nthat there was any violation of principle of natural justice.               It is also
\nmanifest from the record that the reply (Annexure P-19) to show cause
\nnotice dated 1.6.96 was also submitted by the petitioner before the High
\nCourt.     It was a detailed reply, therefore, it could not be said that the
\npetitioner was deprived of the opportunity of hearing.             In the aforesaid
\nfacts and circumstances, personal hearing of the petitioner was also not
\nnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
                                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
20.                The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that
\nthere was no proof that the judicial order (Annexure P-24) was actuated
\nby any corrupt or improper motive, also sans merit in view of the law laid
\ndown by the Apex Court in the case of Shashikant S. Patil (supra).\n<\/p>\n
21.                In the wake of reasons recorded by the High Court in
\nAnnexure P-17 as to finding of guilt of the petitioner with regard to the
\ncharge no.1, in the disciplinary proceedings relating to illegal discharge of
\nthe accused under Section 302 of IPC in S.T.No.213\/93 by him, the view
\ntaken by the High Court that the order (Annexure P-24) was actuated by
\nimproper motive, and consequent imposition of the penalty of withholding
\nof two increments of the petitioner without cumulative effect vide
\norder Annexure P-20, which was a minor punishment, passed by the High
\nCourt\/respondent no.1, after holding due enquiry and giving proper
\nopportunity of hearing, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
\ncase, does not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
22.                As regards non-granting of the selection grade to the
\npetitioner, as communicated to him by (Annexure P-23), the petitioner
\nnever made any representation before the High Court against this
\ncommunication.             Moreover, a perusal of the extract of minutes of
\nHigh Court’s Full Court Meeting, (Annexure R-1) dated 20-4-96 reveals
\nthat after consideration of the ACR’s, other materials and over all
\nperformance of the petitioner, he was not found fit for grant of selection
\ngrade.        It    does     not    appear    to    be    an   offshoot     of    the    order
\n(Annexure P-20), which was passed subsequently.                        For the foregoing
\nreasons and in absence of any representation against the communication
\n(Annexure P-23) regarding unsuitability of the petitioner for the selection
\ngrade in Higher Judicial Services, no interference is called for in the
\ndecision taken in the Full Court Meeting of the High Court, as per
\nAnnexure R-1, communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure P-23.\n<\/p>\n
23.                Thus,     no      case     for     interference     in        the    orders\n(Annexure P-20 and P-23) is made out.\n                   The     writ    petition   being      devoid   of   merit      is    hereby\ndismissed. No costs.\n\n\n(Krishna Kumar Lahoti)                                (Smt. Sushma Shrivastava)\n       Judge                                                   Judge\n      11\/01\/2011                                             11\/01\/2011\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Ramesh Prasad Tihaiya vs The M.P.High Court Th: R.G. & Anr on 11 January, 2011 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR (D.B.: HON. SHRI KRISHNA KUMAR LAHOTI & HON. SMT. SUSHMA SHRIVASTAVA J.J.) WRIT PETITION NO. 4126\/97 Ramesh Prasad Tihaiya Vs. Madhya Pradesh High Court & another ————————————————————————— Shri […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-188863","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh Prasad Tihaiya vs The M.P.High Court Th: R.G. & Anr on 11 January, 2011 - 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\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh Prasad Tihaiya vs The M.P.High Court Th: R.G. & Anr on 11 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-17T02:37:26+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh Prasad Tihaiya vs The M.P.High Court Th: R.G. & Anr on 11 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-17T02:37:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3476,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Ramesh Prasad Tihaiya vs The M.P.High Court Th: R.G. & Anr on 11 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-17T02:37:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh Prasad Tihaiya vs The M.P.High Court Th: R.G. & Anr on 11 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Ramesh Prasad Tihaiya vs The M.P.High Court Th: R.G. & Anr on 11 January, 2011 - 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\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh Prasad Tihaiya vs The M.P.High Court Th: R.G. & Anr on 11 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-17T02:37:26+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh Prasad Tihaiya vs The M.P.High Court Th: R.G. & Anr on 11 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-17T02:37:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011"},"wordCount":3476,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011","name":"Ramesh Prasad Tihaiya vs The M.P.High Court Th: R.G. & Anr on 11 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-17T02:37:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-prasad-tihaiya-vs-the-m-p-high-court-th-r-g-anr-on-11-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh Prasad Tihaiya vs The M.P.High Court Th: R.G. & Anr on 11 January, 2011"}]},{"@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\/188863","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=188863"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188863\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188863"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188863"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188863"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}