{"id":197188,"date":"2010-11-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-03-06T10:42:17","modified_gmt":"2018-03-06T05:12:17","slug":"venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Venkatesh V Nayak vs Dy General Manager Syndicate Bank on 3 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Venkatesh V Nayak vs Dy General Manager Syndicate Bank on 3 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: V.G.Sabhahit And B.Manohar<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 312:\u00bb DAY OF' NoVEMBE1\u00a7..2\u00a7fj'1jT. VA\nPRESENT    \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.      \nAND   _ _ _ V A \nTHE HON'BLE MR.    J\n\nWRIT AppEA.1;;No. 1s'64sg*%2\u00a7Q0(s--DAis) \n\nBETWEEN:\n\nVenkatesh       \nS\/0.Late Vasud.e1f~N.Nayak,:     \u00bb\nMajor, j  \"  '   '\nAssistant M\nSyndicate Bank,' *  M\n\nSaraswathipuraxn. *     \"\n\nMysore. * 2 \" % '       APPELLANT\n\n(By Sri.K5S-ubbaT'Rsp;'Se1Ti'0r.:Counsei for M \/ s. Subba Rao and\n\n    .. ..... ..\n\n  'DEpVuty\u00ab(}.?snV\u00a3\u00a7Tal Manager,\n\nSyndicate. Bank,\n Zonal of\ufb01ce,\nE  Gandh1--Nagar,\n Banga1ore--9.\n\n\n\nI\\)\n\n2. The Inquiring Officer,\n\nSri.J. Hariharan,\n\nAsst.Personne1 Manager,\n\nSyndicate Bank,\n\nZonal Of\ufb01ce,\n\nGandhinagar, --.    \nBangalore--O9.    \n\n(By Sri.Ramdas, Senior Counsel for 0M\/is.Sundaragsvfarrisk'\"arid.L'\n\nRamdas Assts for R1 8: 2)\n\nWrit appeal \ufb01led U\/s_.4 of  \"Karn_ata1.{a\" Htighg\u00e9ourt Act,\n\npraying to set asid\u00a7:_\"'*~i.t1;he'_V \u00a7orpd'ei'\u00bb_p\"\"passed in Writ\nPetition.No.17509\/92 dated:   \n\nThis Writ   and reserved and\ncoming on for  of order this day,\nB.1\\\/IANOHAR.J\u00a7';;'deii\ufb01;rere'd,the roiiouzmgz\n\n\"'JUD\u00a7MENT\n Appeliaiit is rhrepetitaoner in W.P.No.17509\/1992 being\n\nbyj'the.ord.er dated 1-2-2000, passed by the learned\n\n L\u00bb Single this writ appeal.\n\n appellant filed a writ petition initially challenging\n\n  Charges dated 14-10-1991 framed against him\n\n\/5\/\n\n\n\non 14-5-1991, a letter was addressed to him calling upon the\npetitioner to answer certain charges levelled against him in\n\nthe said letter. The basis of the said letter is that\n\nwritten by the Vigilance Cell of the year \n\nletter issued has been produced at _AnneXu_re\u00a5'B'.::inlllthewritd \n\npetition. The petitioner made \"~repr'es'entation \n\nrespondents bringing to their  that\"-by ~a..1'eport=ii<\/pre>\n
of the Vigilance Cell, chargesgpynrere “‘already…_fra;Ened and
\ndepartrnental enquiry  agndhe had already
\nundergone punishment.  letter on the
\nbasis of  is contrary to law.\n<\/p>\n
Followed   sheet dated 14-10-1991
\nwas issued   Being aggrieved by the
\ne’ha’1*ge theppetitionevr got issued a legal notice through<\/p>\n
his’ out the fact that he was already<\/p>\n
 _:””‘pL1nished..__earlicrfhience he cannot be punished for the second<\/p>\n
“”–itin1e”‘for thevsame cause of action. Since the respondents<\/p>\n
 ._’V”‘hav.e’ not viiithdrawn the said charge sheet, the petitioner \ufb02ied<\/p>\n
A\u00ab<\/p>\n
has only issued legal notice that has been produced at
\nAnnexure–D in the writ petition dated 31-1-1992. In the said<\/p>\n
legal notice, the petitioners called upon the responjd~ents”–,,to<\/p>\n
desist from proceeding with the enquiry  <\/p>\n
action will be taken against the resporidentd 2<\/p>\n
notice cannot be treated as a reply. there<\/p>\n
order of stay of Disciplinary  and._ the  was’<\/p>\n
proceeded With. In fact, appeared: for the
\nenquiry on 24-4-1992, he   thereafter, he<\/p>\n
never appeared   Enquiry O\ufb01icer<\/p>\n
submitted   The Enquiry report was
\nforwarded to\u00bb uthel “to” make his submission on
\n24-7-1992, ..Theupe.titioner”-through his letter dated 28-8-1992<\/p>\n
svoughtfor so’rne’lrnore time to submit his explanation. Hence,<\/p>\n
it  clear that”-.tl1effpetitioner is fully aware of the proceedings<\/p>\n
 the lE<nqu_ir'y~ the report submitted by the Enquiry<\/p>\n
 f_.Fhe"i"petitioner also sought for time to make his<\/p>\n
 on enquiry report. Suppressing all these facts,<\/p>\n
\ufb01f<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
the petitioner has contended that he came to know about the<\/p>\n
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority only the<\/p>\n
u .\n<\/p>\n
witness and after anaiysing the evidence. appre’c1ating”the’<\/p>\n
evidence submitted the report.   given
\nelaborate report holding ttiat  against the
\npetitioner are proved.  been given
\nto submit his  the petitioner
\nfailed to make    Disciplinary Authority
\nafter reapp1’eciatingV    concurring with the
\nviews expressed. Officer passed the order on
\n29-9-1992 _  adopted by the respondents is in<\/p>\n
azccordarilcle With’l’ law.  finding recorded by the Enquiry<\/p>\n
  Disciplinary Authority is purely a<\/p>\n
“question  faet._7i’he same is not liable to be interfered with<\/p>\n
‘ * this gHgon’ble”Court in exercise of its power conferred under<\/p>\n
A<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
same cause of action on Which, he has already been<\/p>\n
punished. Pursuant to the report submitted by the Vigilance<\/p>\n
Cell of the Syndicate Bank, the charge sheet has <\/p>\n
on 27~11- 1989. Thereafter, holding an enquiry,…th:eVv .. <\/p>\n
has been punished with reductionlgof  u’increrne\u00bbnt__s, <\/p>\n
14-5-1991. On the Very same day-.’__ one ‘Jznore   1<\/p>\n
issued on the basis of the very  v.igilar1c-errepoyirt calling
\nupon the appeliant to furnisldihis_  it is not open
\nto the respondents to iss1ie–~–f.r.e:sh voffdharges, which<\/p>\n
was already abandoned. on earlier occa.s1oyns. Further there is<\/p>\n
inordinate   issuing fresh Article
\nof Charges   the basis of the Vigilance
\nreport, the ..  already been punished and he
\n   second time on the same cause of<\/p>\n
 to double jeopardy and action of the<\/p>\n
lV’vV..’11’re’spondents ..__is -liable to be quashed. The learned Senior<\/p>\n
1  further contended that there is no fairness in the<\/p>\n
 the respondents. There is no charge regarding<\/p>\n
A~<\/p>\n
z<\/p>\n
dishonesty, corruption. Even though the appellant did not<\/p>\n
appear before the Enquiry Officer, the duty cast<\/p>\n
Enquiry Officer to conduct proper enquiry
\ncorrect conclusion. There is no specific .f_indi:rl1gl 1:5’ ‘
\nthe each charges levelled against the:’pet}tioner’.’- <\/p>\n
charge is not proved by examiningany of ‘ the custoi\ufb01iers of the<\/p>\n
Bank. Since the appellant. has ‘eonteinpt. oflthe court
\nagainst the respondent been taken to
\nterminate his sergvi-ce amount to bias
\nagainst the   Departmental Enquiry
\nagainst the”‘before the Disciplinary
\nAuthority,  been transferred to Uttar
\nPradesh,  is,linorel””llthan 2000 Kms away from
\n  saidiransfer order has been questioned<\/p>\n
before The transfer order has been stayed<\/p>\n
 thel\ufb01ijgh  In spite of the stay order issued by this
\n he h’asl*been relieved from the said post in View of that<\/p>\n
 gl’lilas.,_ifnitiated contempt of court proceedings in CCC<\/p>\n
A~<\/p>\n
795\/2002. In the Contempt proceedings, the respondents<\/p>\n
have submitted apology and he was allowed to continue4:l_in_ the<\/p>\n
same post. With this mala\ufb01de intention in ordeifto<\/p>\n
the petitioner, an enquiry has been conducte’d’hu_rri’edl’y  . 1 <\/p>\n
termination order has been passed ‘wt!-T16<\/p>\n
principles of natural justice. The ‘a._c_tion’of’th.e Inan.age.m’ent is-it<\/p>\n
malafide in law. The appeal \ufb01ledy__t\u00a7y_V_appe1iant against the
\norder of termination was  appellate Authority
\nwithout consideringpany  raised by the<\/p>\n
petitioner. Filing  is not an empty formality<\/p>\n
and the   to consider the matter
\nin proper instant case, the Appellate
\nAuthoritypbyx    13-1-1993 was pleased to
\n  $1i3l?\u20acall\/Vllyyithout considering any of the<\/p>\n
-‘sought for setting aside the order passed<\/p>\n
 the learned f\u00e9ilngle Judge as well as the order passed by<\/p>\n
l H “.’thAe–.respond.ents by allowing this appeal.<\/p>\n
\/8”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10. Sri.K.Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel relie\u00e9fiupon<\/p>\n
the foiiowing judgments:\n<\/p>\n
With r_(;L1’d to delay in initiation of Enqui.1;y_:  H 2  ” <\/p>\n
1.JT 2005 (‘7) SC 417<\/p>\n
( P.V.i\\\/IAHADEVAN V\/s. Mipf xH C5’USs’ING <\/p>\n
BOARD)  ..\n<\/p>\n
2.AIR 1998 sc 1833 % L .\n<\/p>\n
[STATE OF AN1jHiRA1ii9:\u00e9A:i:msHiwgQRADHAKRISHNA)
\n3.1990 sc 1308″  ” ‘ ” ‘  <\/p>\n
[THE s”1’2iTE:oE”:ii;ixDHjrA  V\/s BANI SINGH
\nAND AnI01’1i:iiER)\u00ab.i 1 .   9<\/p>\n
4.ILR 1999 3596 V V’<\/p>\n
V [NKRISHNA MiiRTHir V\/s. THE SYNDICATE BANK AND
\n.’ V.  ‘I V.    . . . . . .i<\/p>\n
5.19\u00a734{2)”SI;R;:’1\u20ac\u00a73. ‘_j..\n<\/p>\n
(A.i\u00e9\u00a7AUr_3US–TiNE V\/s. supm. OF POST OFFICES,
\n‘ H   ALWAYEJ<\/p>\n
‘V  4’  to Bias:\n<\/p>\n
\/W<\/p>\n
1.AIR 2001 SC 24<\/p>\n
(KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., v\/s. <\/p>\n
SHANKAR PANT AND OTHERS)<\/p>\n
2. 2000(8) SCC 395<\/p>\n
(BADRINATH V\/s GOVERNMENT OF=.TAMIL\u00a7’Nz4.1_31’Ij44′   ‘<\/p>\n
AND OTHERS) _  M<\/p>\n
3.AIR 1973 SC 2701<\/p>\n
(SPARTHASARATHI v\/s.:0’sTAT:::0’FI i5t2ADEsH)<\/p>\n
With regard to holding-{of 1  0′<\/p>\n
ILR 1986 sc 839..  4′  0 00<\/p>\n
(KAMATH    ”\n<\/p>\n
With regard  ‘Vdispro00rfi0r:’a._’r\u00e9’ \ufb01enaltv<\/p>\n
1.AIR 200.3  1t3’7.?4 = <\/p>\n
 NAT”H_0UprA\\}\/s ENQUIRY OFFICER (R.K.RAI),
\n 0   _ BAK AND OTHERS<\/p>\n
 ISZVQAIR 1983  0<\/p>\n
~ .. f  V\/s STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND
\n ,_O\u00abTHERS)<\/p>\n
 ‘V–3.20O1S{6] KLJ 304<\/p>\n
W”\n<\/p>\n
N.P.KUDVA V\/s. SYNDICATE BANK, HEAD OFFICE,
\nMANIPAL AND OTHERS
\nLack of Evidence:\n<\/p>\n
1.2009 (2) SCC 570<\/p>\n
(STATE or PUNJAB AND OTHERS %i_.Ai;   A<\/p>\n
GOYAL}
\nNot a speaking, order:\n<\/p>\n
1.AIR1985SC1121 _   V’<\/p>\n
Double ieopardv V
\n1.1972 SLR 6oi  <\/p>\n
(PRAKASH: NA’I\u00a7i1?I’D’E*s:t’\\.IDIJA;\u00abNAIB TEHSILDAR v\/ s<\/p>\n
THE FINANCIAL’ CO?J[r&4ISS1AQNER (REVENUE) PUNJAB,
\ncmaNot1oARH.ANpg.oTHERs}<\/p>\n
1_\u00bb1″;~ ..v_On’:othe;\u00bb_-otizter hahd’;”‘Sri.Ramdas, learned Senior Counsel<\/p>\n
apj5ea1*in_g’ ‘fortheureispondents contended that the enquiry has<\/p>\n
 CO11\u00a3CihuCte.do’ accordance with law after fo\ufb02owing the<\/p>\n
-:.f_p:foce-dure preiscribed under the law. The appellant while<\/p>\n
 a Manager at Merces~Goa branch, during the<\/p>\n
A”\n<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
period between 12-7-1982 to 5-7-1986 exceeding the..__power<\/p>\n
conferred on him sanctioned the loan and also saiic\ufb01oned<\/p>\n
certain credit facilities to some of the ciistciniiers =<\/p>\n
discretionary power of the Manager.  dis.creti.onary’poWcr T<\/p>\n
has been misused. Acting beyond one’s authorityamountsy tog<\/p>\n
misconduct and in such cases,”‘–it”‘–i,s not’–.nece’:3sary”for the<\/p>\n
Bank to establish proof of   occasioned by the
\nunauthorised act of the   The learned
\ncounsel further conitleiidetil   of Charges
\nrelate to sanc’ilion;:.4″” V.  to 6 persons and
\navailing the by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Whereas  issued on 14-10-1991, the
\ncharges relatesflto..:lgr’antCloflcredit facility to 14 customers —
\n  Twas thewsubject matter of Article of Charges<\/p>\n
issued Ascould be seen from Annexures-A and B<\/p>\n
 by..__’tlie-appellant, the Article of Charges are different<\/p>\n
1. Though an opportunity has been given to<\/p>\n
‘before the Enquiry Authority, only once he has<\/p>\n
Aw<\/p>\n
19<\/span>
\nappeared and sought for time thereafter, he did not appear<\/p>\n
before the Enquiry Committee. The enquiry has’.:Tb.een<\/p>\n
proceeded with and thereafter the Enquiry  _<\/p>\n
forwarded to the appellant to furnish his remai*}~:s;..   2 <\/p>\n
has been furnished to the enquiry re:’p4ort._p;~ .. Vabse:n.ce::of<\/p>\n
the same, the Disciplinary Authority considered’ltljre.\/_Hen.t;uiI’y.i*<\/p>\n
report submitted by the \u00a7:3nquiry___llO:fti_c*er and”\u00abreappreciating
\nthe same came to the conclusion _ t’if1’a.tu thj\u20ac*.:lc11arges have been
\nproved against hiIn*’a_nd ucyylltlgnninating the<\/p>\n
service of the appellai:1t..’;’–_VTlieappeal  the appellant was<\/p>\n
also dismisls\ufb01ed The Appellate
\nAuthority orderhas questioned in the writ petition.
\nHence, th.e..appel’iant  not entitled for any relief and sought<\/p>\n
  ‘of
\n12;\u00bb. Theryylearnletdi’ i-counsel has relied upon the following<\/p>\n
‘ l’i’~A..,.v\u00a7\u00bb11dgI1ii33’.lts:  <\/p>\n
\/5″\n<\/p>\n
23<\/span>
\nand the Enquiry Officer submitted a report and the charges<\/p>\n
are proved against the appellant accordingly punishmxent’rhas<\/p>\n
been imposed withholding two increments  _<\/p>\n
effect. During the pendency of the saidgggenqui_ry;\u00bbt.h:e :Vitgilarlce”‘~ <\/p>\n
Cell sent one more report in the year:’\u00bb._19E\u00bb}0 <\/p>\n
more irregularities. T his factrfearne to ‘the “of <\/p>\n
respondent after issuance of the fir_st’charge   the year
\n1988. On the basis of  furnished by the
\nVigilance Cell, the _second””st1;$y;rV’causedI came to be<\/p>\n
issued and the1’veaftei:_.’;’.A;rtir;le–,_of” Charges was issued on<\/p>\n
14-10-199the Article of Charges
\nissued earlier  Article of Charges, the first
\nArticle of Charges relate ftoffthe sanctioning of the loan and
\n   regard to six customers. The<\/p>\n
fof:’.Charges relates to grant of credit facility<\/p>\n
C’  14 cuS\u00abtonie1’sV;.:’~” None of which was the subject matter of the<\/p>\n
C   Charges issued earlier. The irregularity mentioned<\/p>\n
 of Charges dated 14-10-1991 is totally different<\/p>\n
5*<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
and distinct from the irregularities mentioned in the first<\/p>\n
Article of Charges. If the respondent found som\u00e9jgnore<\/p>\n
materials after completion of enquiry, there  <\/p>\n
initiating one more enquiry against thedelinquent ‘officer; We T<\/p>\n
found no irregularity in issuing the <\/p>\n
with regard to the omission and..c’ommission;v..Which “came to<\/p>\n
light subsequently, which necessitate_:’initi.ation of disciplinary
\nproceedings against the  There is no
\nimpediment for the-flank  of Charges
\ndated l4–I0–20\u00a7O’l””:y1rasf” writ petition before<\/p>\n
this Hon’blev”Cou_rt;q   refused to grant an<\/p>\n
interim order,’ ‘The appointed an Enquiry Officer
\nto enquire intothe”mat.terv_arid the date was \ufb01xed to appear
\nbefore  Instead of filing objections to the Article<\/p>\n
of   issued legal notice dated 31- 1-1992<\/p>\n
 advocate calling upon the respondents to desist<\/p>\n
.:fglproceeding  the enquiry and the matter is subjudice, the<\/p>\n
   is pending before the High Court though the<\/p>\n
\u00e9w<\/p>\n
25<\/span>
\ninterim prayer was rejected. The Enquiry Officer conducted<\/p>\n
enquiry on Various dates. The date was informed. <\/p>\n
delinquent officer also. The enquiry was held \u00ab _<\/p>\n
9-4-1992, 10~\u00bb4m1992, 24-4-1992, i8–5:1992_ar’id:’i:i~f$\u00a5\u20ac’i:-1-992′. <\/p>\n
The appellant appeared only on 2444-   <\/p>\n
time thereafter he never turnecilup. The Man,a’g5e1r:ent3 has,”<\/p>\n
examined their witnesses and  the dloeulrnerits. The
\nappellant has not cross–e\u00a7\u00a7srr1ineC};-,’ :nan’agement witnesses.
\nThereafter, the Enquiry   a report on<\/p>\n
22-7-1992. A    was forwarded to<\/p>\n
the    Calling upon the
\nappellant .~*1’1r1e appellant vide his letter
\ndated 20;8.–l9El2 ._:inforrnedll”‘the respondent that the writ
\n  eonlsideration before the Hon’ble High<\/p>\n
Court   his-stibjudice not to proceed further. In order<\/p>\n
 give one opportunity, the respondents vide letter<\/p>\n
l  19r9’23=Q–l992 called upon the appellant to furnish his<\/p>\n
 a period of 3 days. In spite of the same,<\/p>\n
A”\n<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant has not furnished any reply. The Disciplinary<\/p>\n
Authority after considering the Enquiry report in <\/p>\n
appreciating the documentary and oral evidenc-e:.:’carne’i’to  <\/p>\n
conclusion that the charges levelled against  are <\/p>\n
proved. Further, taking into consideration they-past<\/p>\n
that earlier he was punished for’-\u00a7”w-timevs ‘for”wtt1.e irregularity’<\/p>\n
committed by him, Disciplinary .passed”thVe order on
\n29-9-1992 terminating his   of its power
\nconferred under  Regulation 24 of the
\nSyndicate Banek\ufb01   tconduct] Regulation
\n1996. T11ei\u00ab\u00a7aiVd quashed before the
\nHon’ble Higla  by amending the writ
\npetition and  i”o.rf– order. This Hon’ble Court by
\niij.S~V.OrC16r’:i.jre}e-cted..the prlayler of the appellant for stay of the<\/p>\n
order  dated 2959- 1992.\n<\/p>\n
“”3\u00a71i3*;.__l’Being.’ aggrieved by the rejection of the interim order,<\/p>\n
9  4\/ 1992 was \ufb01led by the appellant, which came to<\/p>\n
\u00a3~<\/p>\n
27<\/span><\/p>\n
be dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on 4-11-1992. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
the appellant preferred a statutory appeal before  <\/p>\n
Authority. The Appellate Authority after  ” <\/p>\n
memorandum of the appeal and :a’Js’o’*the–, grouiir:1sv’r’aised it<\/p>\n
therein by its order dated 13~l-l992lA:rejec_ted  said <\/p>\n
The appellant has not challenged:”‘t,he  the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority dated \u00a5i~:3f_f 1~  the learhed Single<\/p>\n
Judge.\n<\/p>\n
17. The learnedfbihg\ufb01glle  aftefivflloolnslidering the matter
\nby its order\ufb02 iyr.it.’:appeal was pleased to
\ndismiss   by giving elaborate
\nreasons. The”..learnled_RV counsel contended that the
\nsecond  cause” cannot be issued for the same<\/p>\n
cause  agctiyon  is contrary to the law laid down by this<\/p>\n
 Hon’ble.VlCouVrt ‘reported in ILR 1986 KAR 839 in the case of<\/p>\n
we i\u00a7.s.R.T.C. As could be seen from the Article of<\/p>\n
f ‘Char *’es issued earlier and the resent one, it is clear that in
\n  .5 , _ P<\/p>\n
  Article of Charges the enquiry was con\ufb01ned to the<\/p>\n
A~<\/p>\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n
irregularity with regard to 6 customers. During the process of<\/p>\n
enquiry some new materials has come to light. The tVigil;ance<\/p>\n
Cell has submitted one more report with  or<\/p>\n
irregularity of sanctioning of creditv-facility to .l4xV’cListon1ers. 7<\/p>\n
The respondents issued one moreV*Ar’ticle  Charg-es”.on,<\/p>\n
l4~ 10-1991, which is a distinct  oi’
\nthe appellant cannot be  Enquiry
\nOfficer has given suf\ufb01cienlthlift}-ie appellant to
\nhave his say in   only once
\nbefore the  he remained exparte.\n<\/p>\n
He has  theuularticle of Charges except
\nissuing  The Enquiry Of\ufb01cer
\nafter considering each and every charge levelled against the
\n elaboratingv the evidence led by the parties<\/p>\n
subinitted’  Reading of the said report makes<\/p>\n
\u00b0’–itvery clear  appellant acted beyond one’s authority<\/p>\n
-4fan__”sanct1o’n.ed the loan and other facilities to the customers<\/p>\n
 recovery of the said loan amount has become<\/p>\n
ii<\/p>\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
the enquiry officer and accept the reasoning given
\nby him, in support of such \ufb01nding, it
\nnecessary for the punishing authorities”-i’..’ta: <\/p>\n
reappraise the evidence arriving  ‘<\/p>\n
conclusion.”\n<\/p>\n
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Cour.t:v”ir1_ the<\/p>\n
clearly held that the Regi.1lationt—alsgo does ‘not’-‘obligate the
\nAppellate Authority to    -‘._for its order.
\nAssuming, that by   regulation also
\nrequires the  reasons, still its order
\ncannot be in’vaE–id:a;tedl,’fias  it has discharged its
\nobligation by l’  “record and proceedings
\npertaining to ..disciplinarydaction. Further, with regard to
\n ..:_iiala’fi;de\u00bb_A-allegation'”made against the respondent during<\/p>\n
the’c_o”ur_s’e. necessary foundation has not been<\/p>\n
 and.__alsoV.nloi::pIeading is made with regard to the bias or<\/p>\n
-.l.l.l’1nalafide allegation against the officer. Though the allegation<\/p>\n
rnade agaisnt Sri.U.M.Kini, he is not made party to<\/p>\n
\/9″\n<\/p>\n
manner in which decision is made. The relevant portion of<\/p>\n
the judgment reported in AIR 1996 SC 1232 in <\/p>\n
STATE or TAMIL NADU AND   <\/p>\n
SSUBRAMANIAM reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
” It is well settled law that “Tribunal:\u00a7 i
\nonly power of judicial review’r\u00abiofi the adrr1i’11istrative
\naction of the appellant on theicpornplaintls’relating
\nto service conditions\ufb01opfc   lt is the
\nexclusive domain of ‘authority to
\nconsider the “‘eviderice:   record
\nfindings the  been proved or
\nnot. lt__I_s   technical rules
\nof evidence for the disciplinary
\nproceedingsand_.\u00e9’thel:_aa;thority is to consider the
\nmaterial  record.A’.In”‘.judicial review, it is well<\/p>\n
V   set_’iVlt?d21_paW__that”‘th.e…CJourt or the Tribunal has no
\n   to –,:t~rench upon the jurisdiction to
\n 5-.ciat’e.VplV_tlax,evevidence and to arrive at its own
\ncoii.cplusion_;JVudicial review is not an appeal from
\n‘u__the decisjion but a review of the manner in which
\n “‘..:r*thei’-decision is made. It is meant to ensure that<\/p>\n
  thedelinquent receives fair treatment and not to<\/p>\n
A”\n<\/p>\n
33<\/span><\/p>\n
ensure that the conclusion which the authority
\nre-aches is necessarily correct in the View of
\nCourt or the Tribunal. When the conelnsioii
\nreached by the authority is based on exd.den*ee.’~tl1e
\nTribunal is devoid of power towreapp-reciate’-the”‘
\nevidence and would come to  lconc’I’n’sio.n
\nthe proof of charges. The only consideratio\u00abn”‘the”j
\nCourt\/Tribunai has in its ‘review  to
\nconsider whether coiicinsionllis–based. on “evidence
\non record and supports the oryirliether the
\nconclusion is based or1’no.:’etrit1-eince.’-‘
\nIn the instant’  arxived at by the
\nDisciplinary—-Au.thor:\u00a3ty*;.;is   evidence. In View of
\nthat the order j_7asse\u00e9{l.’ijy lvth<L\u00a7_'l'i'17:li:sciplina1y Authority cannot be
\n\ufb01nd fauit ..lI~\u00a3'etice,AAWe*~"hold that there is no delay in<\/p>\n
i1ai';iatingf_' th\u00a2.,,pro_eeedin'  ' '<\/p>\n
     angle, the appellant has not made out<\/p>\n
..l_lj'an.y'wcase to iiiterfere with the order passed by the learned<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
Single Judge and also the order impugned in the writ pe!',3\u00a7tion.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, We pass the following:<\/p>\n
The appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Parties to bear their own costs.-.. <\/p>\n
 %%%%    ..  Judg\u00e9\nJudge\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Venkatesh V Nayak vs Dy General Manager Syndicate Bank on 3 November, 2010 Author: V.G.Sabhahit And B.Manohar IN THE HIGH COURT OF’ KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 312:\u00bb DAY OF’ NoVEMBE1\u00a7..2\u00a7fj’1jT. VA PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. AND _ _ _ V A THE HON’BLE MR. J WRIT AppEA.1;;No. 1s’64sg*%2\u00a7Q0(s–DAis) BETWEEN: Venkatesh S\/0.Late […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-197188","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVenkatesh V Nayak vs Dy General Manager Syndicate Bank on 3 November, 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\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Venkatesh V Nayak vs Dy General Manager Syndicate Bank on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-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=\"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-06T05:12:17+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Venkatesh V Nayak vs Dy General Manager Syndicate Bank on 3 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-06T05:12:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2827,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Venkatesh V Nayak vs Dy General Manager Syndicate Bank on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-06T05:12:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Venkatesh V Nayak vs Dy General Manager Syndicate Bank on 3 November, 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":"Venkatesh V Nayak vs Dy General Manager Syndicate Bank on 3 November, 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\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Venkatesh V Nayak vs Dy General Manager Syndicate Bank on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-06T05:12:17+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Venkatesh V Nayak vs Dy General Manager Syndicate Bank on 3 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-06T05:12:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010"},"wordCount":2827,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010","name":"Venkatesh V Nayak vs Dy General Manager Syndicate Bank on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-06T05:12:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-v-nayak-vs-dy-general-manager-syndicate-bank-on-3-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Venkatesh V Nayak vs Dy General Manager Syndicate Bank on 3 November, 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\/197188","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=197188"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197188\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197188"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197188"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197188"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}