{"id":202923,"date":"1995-10-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-10-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995"},"modified":"2015-05-31T06:55:09","modified_gmt":"2015-05-31T01:25:09","slug":"union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs M. Bhaskaran on 30 October, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India &amp; Ors vs M. Bhaskaran on 30 October, 1995<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR  686, \t\t  1995 SCC  Supl.  (4) 100<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M S.B.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Majmudar S.B. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM. BHASKARAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT30\/10\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nMAJMUDAR S.B. (J)\nBENCH:\nMAJMUDAR S.B. (J)\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 AIR  686\t\t  1995 SCC  Supl.  (4) 100\n 1995 SCALE  (6)214\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t  W I T H<br \/>\n\t       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9637 OF 1995<br \/>\n       (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14326 of 1995)<br \/>\nUnion of India &amp; Ors.\n<\/p>\n<p>V.\n<\/p>\n<p>G. Radhakrishnan<br \/>\n\t\t\t   A N D<br \/>\n\t       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9638 OF 1995<br \/>\n       (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14330 of 1995)<br \/>\nUnion of India &amp; Ors.\n<\/p>\n<p>V.\n<\/p>\n<p>C Devan<br \/>\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nS.B. Majmudar.J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  Leave granted in these petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>     By\t consent   of  learned\t advocates   appearing\t for<br \/>\nrespective parties  the appeals\t were  taken  up  for  final<br \/>\nhearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The short\tquestion involved  in these three appeals is<br \/>\nas  to\twhether\t the  respondent-workmen  who  had  obtained<br \/>\nemployment in  Railway service\trun  by\t appellant-Union  of<br \/>\nIndia, on  the basis  of bogus\tand forged  casual  labourer<br \/>\nservice cards  could be\t continued in  Railway service\tonce<br \/>\nsuch fraud  was detected  by the  Railway  authorities.\t The<br \/>\nCentral Administrative\tTribunal, Ernakulam  Bench has taken<br \/>\nthe view that as the aforesaid misconduct of the respondent-<br \/>\nRailway employees  does not  fall within  the forecorners of<br \/>\nRule 3(1)(i)  and (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules,<br \/>\n1966 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules&#8217;), the orders of<br \/>\nremoval from  service passed  against the  respondents could<br \/>\nnot be\tsustained and they were entitled to be reinstated in<br \/>\nRailway\t service   with\t all  conse  uential  benefits.\t The<br \/>\naforesaid view\tof the\tTribunal is  brought on the anvil of<br \/>\nscrutiny in  the present proceedings moved by the appellant-<br \/>\nUnion of  India and  the concerned Railway authorities under<br \/>\nwhom the respondent-workmen worked at the relevant time.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Tribunal  in  the  impugned  judgments\t has  placed<br \/>\nreliance on  its earlier  decision in  O.A. No.892  of\t1993<br \/>\ndecided on  22nd June  1994 for\t taking the  view that\tsuch<br \/>\nmisconduct would  not attract  Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of the<br \/>\nRules. It  is not  in dispute  between the  parties that the<br \/>\nconcerned respondent-workmen  had got  employment in Railway<br \/>\nby producing  bogus and forged casual labourer service cards<br \/>\npurported to  have been\t issued by  their earlier employers.<br \/>\nHowever, according  to the  Tribunal such a misconduct would<br \/>\nnot attract  Rule 3(1)(i)  and (iii)  of the  Rules  as\t the<br \/>\nconcerned employee  even though engaged as a casual employee<br \/>\ncould not  be said  to be  governed by the Rules at the time<br \/>\nwhen he\t obtained such employment and that he was not guilty<br \/>\nof any misconduct committed during the Railway service.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The aforesaid  view  of  the  Tribunal  can  be  better<br \/>\nappreciated in\tthe light  of the relevant provisions of the<br \/>\nRule itself. Rule 3(1) reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;3.  General.- (1) Every railway<br \/>\n\t  servant shall at all times-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (i)  maintain absolute integrity;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<pre>\n\t  (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and\n\t  (iii do nothing which is subversion\n\t       of law and order and is\n\t       unbecoming of a railway\n\t       government     Servant.\"\n<\/pre>\n<blockquote><p>Now it\tis no doubt true that on the express language of the<br \/>\nRule the  concerned Railway servant has to maintain absolute<br \/>\nintegrity and has not to do any thing which is subversion of<br \/>\nlaw and\t order and  which is  unbecoming of  a railway\tor a<br \/>\ngovernment servant.  That would certainly apply to a railway<br \/>\nservant who is alleged to have misconducted himself while in<br \/>\nRailway\t service.   However,  learned\tsenior\tcounsel\t for<br \/>\nappellants vehemently  submitted that the misconduct alleged<br \/>\nin the\tpresent case, of snatching railway employment in the<br \/>\nbasis of  bogus certificates or casual labourer cards, would<br \/>\nindeed show  that the  concerned employee  had\texhibited  a<br \/>\nconduct which was unbecoming of a railway servant.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     It is  not necessary  for us  to express any opinion on<br \/>\nthe applicability  of Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) on the facts of<br \/>\nthe present cases for the simple reason that in our view the<br \/>\nconcerned  railway   employees,\t respondents   herein\thave<br \/>\nadmittedly snatched employment in Railway service, may be of<br \/>\na casual  nature, by  relying upon  forged or  bogus  casual<br \/>\nlabourer cards.\t The unauthenticity  of the service cards on<br \/>\nthe  basis   of\t which\t they  got   employment\t is  clearly<br \/>\nestablished on\trecord\tof  the\t departmental  enquiry\theld<br \/>\nagainst the  concerned employees. Consecuently, it has to be<br \/>\nheld that  respondents were  guilty of misrepresentation and<br \/>\nfraud perpetrated  on the  appellant employer  while getting<br \/>\nemployed in Railway service and had Snatched such employment<br \/>\nwhich would  not have  been made  availeble to\tthem if they<br \/>\nwere not  armed with  such bogus  and forged labourer cards.<br \/>\nLearned counsel\t for  the  respondents\tsubmitted  that\t for<br \/>\ngetting service\t in Railway  as\t casual\t labourers,  it\t was<br \/>\nstrictly not necessary for the respondents to rely upon such<br \/>\ncasual service\tcards. If  that was so there was no occasion<br \/>\nfor them  to produce  such bogus  certificates service cards<br \/>\nfor getting  employed in  Railway service.  Therefore, it is<br \/>\ntoo late  in the  day for  the respondents  to\tsubmit\tthat<br \/>\nproduction of  such bogus  or forged  service cards  had not<br \/>\nplayed its  role in  getting employed in Railway service. It<br \/>\nwas clearly  a case  of fraud  on the appellant-employer. If<br \/>\nonce  such   fraud  is\t detected,  the\t appointment  orders<br \/>\nthemselves which  were found  to be  tainted and vitiated by<br \/>\nfraud and  acts of  cheating on\t the part of employees, were<br \/>\nliable to  be recalled\tand were  at least  voidable at\t the<br \/>\noption of the employer concerned. This is precisely what has<br \/>\nhappened  in  the  present  case.  Once\t the  fraud  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondents\t in getting such employment was detected the<br \/>\nrespondents were proceeded against in departmental enquiries<br \/>\nand were  called upon  to have their say and thereafter have<br \/>\nbeen removed  from service.  Such orders  of  removal  would<br \/>\namount\tto  recalling  of  fraudulently\t obtained  erroneous<br \/>\nappointment orders  which  were\t avoided  by  the  employer-<br \/>\nappellant after\t following the\tdue  procedure\tof  law\t and<br \/>\ncomplying with the principles of natural justice. Therefore,<br \/>\neven independently  of Rule  3(1)(i) and (iii) of the Rules,<br \/>\nsuch  fraudulently  obtained  appointment  orders  could  be<br \/>\nlegitimately treated  as  voidable  at\tthe  option  of\t the<br \/>\nemployer and  could be\trecalled by the employer and in such<br \/>\ncases merely because the respondent-employees have continued<br \/>\nin service  for\t number\t of  years  on\tthe  basic  of\tsuch<br \/>\nfraudulently obtained  employment orders  cannot create\t any<br \/>\nequity\tin   their  favour   or\t any  estoppel\tagainst\t the<br \/>\nemployer.In this  connection we\t may  usefully\trefer  to  a<br \/>\ndecision of  this Court\t in <a href=\"\/doc\/1757111\/\">District  Collector &amp;  Chairman,<br \/>\nVizianagaram  Social  Welfare  Residential  School  Society,<br \/>\nVizianagaram &amp;\tAnr. V. M. Tripura Sundari Devi<\/a> (1990) 3 SCC\n<\/p>\n<p>655. In\t that case  Sawant, J.\tspeaking for this Court held<br \/>\nthat   when   an   advertisement   mentions   a\t  particular<br \/>\nqualification and  an appointment is made in disrgard of the<br \/>\nsame, it  is  not  a  matter  only  between  the  appointing<br \/>\nauthority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all<br \/>\nthose who had similar or even better qualifications than the<br \/>\nappointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post<br \/>\nbecause they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in<br \/>\nthe advertisement.  It amounts\tto  a  fraud  on  public  to<br \/>\nappoint\t persons   with\t inferior   qualifications  in\tsuch<br \/>\ncircumstances  unless\tit  is\t clearly  stated   that\t the<br \/>\nqualifications are  relaxable. No court should be a party to<br \/>\nthe perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. It is of course<br \/>\ntrue as\t noted by the Tribunal that the facts of the case in<br \/>\nthe aforesaid  decision were different from the facts of the<br \/>\npresent case.  And it is also true that in that case pending<br \/>\nthe service which was continued pursuant to the order of the<br \/>\nTribunal the  concerned\t candidate  acquired  the  requisite<br \/>\nqualification and hence his appointment was not disturbed by<br \/>\nthis Court. But that is neither here nor there. As laid down<br \/>\nin  the\t aforesaid  decision  if  by  committing  fraud\t any<br \/>\nemployment is  obtained such a fraudulent practice cannot be<br \/>\npermitted  to\tbe  countenanced   by  a   court   of\tlaw.<br \/>\nConsequently,  it   must  be  held  that  the  Tribunal\t had<br \/>\ncommitted a  patent error  of law in directing reinstatement<br \/>\nof the\trespondent-workmen with\t all consequential benefits.<br \/>\nThe removal  orders could  not\thave  been  faulted  by\t the<br \/>\nTribunal as  they were\tthe result of a sharp and fraudulent<br \/>\npractice on the part of the respondents. Learned counsel for<br \/>\nrespondents,  However,\t submitted  that   these  illiterate<br \/>\nrespondents were  employed as casual labourers years back in<br \/>\n1983 and  subsequently they have been given temporary status<br \/>\nand, therefore,\t after passage\tof such\t a  long  time\tthey<br \/>\nshould not  be thrown  out of employment. It is difficult to<br \/>\nagree with  this contention.  By  mere\tpassage\t of  time  a<br \/>\nfraudulent  practice   would  not   get\t any  sanctity.\t The<br \/>\nappellant authorities having come to know about the fraud of<br \/>\nthe  respondents   in\tobtaining   employment\t as   casual<br \/>\nLabourers,, started  departmental proceeding  years back  in<br \/>\n1987 and  these proceedings  have dragged  on for  number of<br \/>\nyears. Earlier\tremoval orders\tof the\trespondents were set<br \/>\naside by  the Central  Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench<br \/>\nand proceedings were remanded and after remand fresh removal<br \/>\norders were  passed by\tthe appellant  which have  been\t set<br \/>\naside by  the  Central\tAdministrative\tTribunal,  Ernakulam<br \/>\nBench and  which are  the  subject  matter  of\tthe  present<br \/>\nproceedings.  Therefore,   it  cannot\tbe  said   that\t the<br \/>\nappellants are\testopped from  recalling  such\tfraudulently<br \/>\nobtained employment  orders of\tthe respondents\t subject  of<br \/>\ncourse\tto  following  due  procedure  of  law\tand  in\t due<br \/>\ncompliance with\t the principles of natural justice, on which<br \/>\naspect there  is no  dispute between  the  parties.  If\t any<br \/>\nlenient view  is taken\ton the\tfacts of the present case in<br \/>\nfavour of  the respondents  then it  would amount to putting<br \/>\npremium on  dishonesty and sharp practice which on the facts<br \/>\nof the\tpresent case  in favour\t of the\t respondents then it<br \/>\nwould amount  to putting  premium on  dishonesty  and  sharp<br \/>\npractice which\ton the\tfacts of the present cases cannot be<br \/>\npermitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     For all  these reasons,  therefore, these\tappeals\t are<br \/>\nallowed. The  impugned orders  of the Tribunal are set aside<br \/>\nand the\t original  applications\t filed\tby  the\t respondents<br \/>\nbefore the Central Administrative Tribunal, Eranakulam Bench<br \/>\nare dismissed.\tHowever, in  the facts\tand circumstances of<br \/>\nthe cases there will be no order as to costs all throughout.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Union Of India &amp; Ors vs M. Bhaskaran on 30 October, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 686, 1995 SCC Supl. (4) 100 Author: M S.B. Bench: Majmudar S.B. (J) PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: M. BHASKARAN DATE OF JUDGMENT30\/10\/1995 BENCH: MAJMUDAR S.B. (J) BENCH: MAJMUDAR S.B. (J) JEEVAN [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-202923","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Union Of India &amp; Ors vs M. Bhaskaran on 30 October, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs M. Bhaskaran on 30 October, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1995-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-31T01:25:09+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs M. Bhaskaran on 30 October, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-31T01:25:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995\"},\"wordCount\":1635,\"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\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995\",\"name\":\"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs M. Bhaskaran on 30 October, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-31T01:25:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs M. Bhaskaran on 30 October, 1995\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs M. Bhaskaran on 30 October, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs M. Bhaskaran on 30 October, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-31T01:25:09+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs M. Bhaskaran on 30 October, 1995","datePublished":"1995-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-31T01:25:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995"},"wordCount":1635,"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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995","name":"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs M. Bhaskaran on 30 October, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-31T01:25:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-m-bhaskaran-on-30-october-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India &amp; Ors vs M. Bhaskaran on 30 October, 1995"}]},{"@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\/202923","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=202923"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202923\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202923"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202923"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202923"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}