{"id":207226,"date":"1998-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998"},"modified":"2018-09-21T07:42:35","modified_gmt":"2018-09-21T02:12:35","slug":"union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India And Ors vs Shri B. Dev on 14 August, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India And Ors vs Shri B. Dev on 14 August, 1998<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M S V.Manohar.J.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, S. Rajendra Babu<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHRI B. DEV\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t14\/08\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nSUJATA V. MANOHAR, S. RAJENDRA BABU\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nMrs. Sujata V.Manohar.J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  respondent  was  holding  the\t post  of  Assistant<br \/>\nDirector Grade\tI in the Directorate General of supplies and<br \/>\nDisposals with\teffect\tfrom  27.12.1967.  He  was  sent  on<br \/>\ndeputation to  the Ministry  of External Affairs as Director<br \/>\n(Shipping) and\twas posted at the post of High Commission of<br \/>\nIndia in  London from 18.7.1975 for a period of three years.<br \/>\nThe period of his deputation expired on 18.7.1978. Thereupon<br \/>\nhe was\tinformed on 24.7.1978 by the Counsellor (Political &amp;<br \/>\nAdmn.), High Commission of India, London to make preparation<br \/>\nfor his departure to New Delhi were he was being transferred<br \/>\nwith immediate\teffect. The  respondent made  representation<br \/>\nagainst his  transfer.\tHowever,  his  representations\twere<br \/>\nrejected and  he was  informed that the Ministry of External<br \/>\nAffairs had  decided that he should relinquish charge of his<br \/>\noffice on 15.2.1978. The respondent gave various excuses for<br \/>\nnot handing  over charge. He said that he was suffering from<br \/>\na Slip-disc.  Then he  said that  his  wife  was  not  well.<br \/>\nUltimately, he\talso asked  for leave.\tOn  27.12.1978,\t the<br \/>\nrespondent was\tinformed that  he will\tbe  deemed  to\thave<br \/>\nrelinquished  charges  on  the\tevening\t of  7.12.1978,\t The<br \/>\nrespondent ,  however purported\t to go\ton medical leave. He<br \/>\nreported for  duty at the High Commission of India in London<br \/>\non 7.2.1979  but he  was not allowed to join. Thereafter the<br \/>\nrespondent applied  for grant  of excuse India leave for two<br \/>\nmonths with effect from 9.2.1979.\n<\/p>\n<p>     By order  dated 14.2.1979 the applicant was relieved of<br \/>\nhis duties  as Director\t (Shipping) in\tthe High  Commission<br \/>\nwith effect  from 7.12.1978  and the period of his leave was<br \/>\nregularised. He\t was also  informed that his request for ex-<br \/>\nIndia  leave   for  two\t  months  had\tbeen  rejected.\t The<br \/>\nrespondent, however, did not return to Delhi nor did he join<br \/>\nduty.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Under a  memorandum  dated\t 9  the\t of  June  1981\t the<br \/>\nPresident proposed to hold an inquiry against the respondent<br \/>\nunder Rule  14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification,<br \/>\nControl &amp; Appeal ) Rules, 1965. A statement of imputation of<br \/>\nmisconduct was annexed\tto the memorandum and the respondent<br \/>\nwas directed  to submit\t a written  statement of his defence<br \/>\nand state  wheather he\tdesired to  be heard  in person. The<br \/>\narticle of charges were to the following effect:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8221; The  said Shri  B. Dev  who is  a<br \/>\n     permanent Assistant  Director  (Gr.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     I) in  DGS&amp;D, and is officiating as<br \/>\n     Dy.   Director    from   27.12.1967<br \/>\n     onwards, committed grave misconduct<br \/>\n     by\t remaining   absent  from   duty<br \/>\n     unauthorisedly w.e.  from 10.2.1979<br \/>\n     to\t  date\t and   by   continuously<br \/>\n     disobeying\t the  Government  orders<br \/>\n     issued to him for joining duty. His<br \/>\n     continued unauthorised absence from<br \/>\n     duty  for\tsuch  a\t long  time  and<br \/>\n     disobeying\t of   Government  orders<br \/>\n     tantamount\t  (sic)\t  to   lack   of<br \/>\n     devotion to  duty, and to a conduct<br \/>\n     unbecoming of a Government servant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     2. Shri  B. Dev  has thus\tviolated<br \/>\n     the provision  of clauses\t(ii) and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (iii)  of\t Rule  3   (1)\tof   CSS<br \/>\n     (Conduct) Rules,  1964 and rendered<br \/>\n     himself  liable   to   disciplinary<br \/>\n     action  under   CSS  (CC&amp;A)  Rules,<br \/>\n     1965.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     A\t statement   of\t  imputations\tof   misconduct\t  or<br \/>\nmisbehaviour in\t support of  the articles of charge was also<br \/>\nannexed. These\twere forwarded\tto the\tHigh  Commission  at<br \/>\nLondon for  service on\tthe respondent. The First Secretary,<br \/>\nHigh Commission\t of India in London was appointed as Inquiry<br \/>\nOfficer. Although  the charges were served on the respondent<br \/>\nand the\t Inquiry Officer notified to the respondent the date<br \/>\nof the\tproceeding against  the respondent,  he chose not to<br \/>\nappear before the Inquiry Officer despite several reminders.<br \/>\nUltimately an  ex parte\t hearing was  held on  4.1.1983. The<br \/>\nInquiry Officer submitted his report dated 18.1.1983 holding<br \/>\nthat the  charge framed\t against the  respondent  of  having<br \/>\ncommitted a  grave misconduct  by remaining absent from duty<br \/>\nunauthorisedly with  effect from  10.2.1979 till 30.11.1981,<br \/>\nthe date  on which  he was  to superannuate  from government<br \/>\nservice, and  thereby violating\t clauses (ii)  and (iii)  of<br \/>\nRule 3(1) of CCS (Conduct) Riles, 1964, had been proved. The<br \/>\nenquiry officer\t observed that the conduct of the respondent<br \/>\nwas delibrate  and there  was no mitigating circumstances in<br \/>\nhis favour.  The respondent  had used his tenure at the High<br \/>\nCommission for\tcenabling himself  to  stay  permanently  in<br \/>\nEngland. He  had purchased  a house  in London almost at the<br \/>\nbeginning of his tenure there and his motive for overstaying<br \/>\nwas clear; and in the circumstances exemplary punishment was<br \/>\ncalled for.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  meanwhile,\t since\tthe  respondent\t would\thave<br \/>\nretired with  effect from  30.11.1981 the  enquiry which was<br \/>\ninstituted against  him under  Rule 14\tof the CCS (Conduct)<br \/>\nRules, 1965  was deemed\t to be under CCS Pension Rules, 1972<br \/>\nas per\tthe Department\tof Supply, order No. 9 (706)\/79-Vig.<br \/>\nDated 30th  of November\t 1981.\t The  Government  of  India,<br \/>\nDepartment of Supply thereafter considered the report of the<br \/>\nInquiry Officer\t along with  the note of the Inquiry Officer<br \/>\nsetting out  the several  notices sent by him requesting the<br \/>\nrespondent to  remain  present\tat  the\t enquiry.    By\t its<br \/>\nmemorandum dated  8th of  February, 1984,  after taking into<br \/>\nconsideration the  record of  the enquiry  and the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances  of  the\tcase,  it  came\t to  the  conclusion<br \/>\nprovisionally  that  the  penalty  of  withholding  of\tfull<br \/>\npensionary  benefit   permanently  may\tbe  imposed  on\t the<br \/>\nrespondent.   Hence the\t respondent  was  thereby  given  an<br \/>\nopportunity to\tmake a\trepresentation, if  he\tso  desired,<br \/>\nagainst the  penalty proposed  above.\tIt was stated in the<br \/>\nmemorandum that\t such  a  representation  should  reach\t the<br \/>\nundersigned within one month from the date of receipt of the<br \/>\nmemo. The respondent sent a representation.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Union Public Service Commission by its letter dated<br \/>\n30.11.1984 addressed  to the  Secretary to the Government of<br \/>\nIndia, Department of Supply, considered in detail the charge<br \/>\nagainst the  respondent, the  report of the Inquiry Officer,<br \/>\nthe  representations   made  by\t  the\trespondent   against<br \/>\npunishment and\tby its\tdetailed order of that date conveyed<br \/>\nto the\tPresident that\tthe Commission\tconsidered that\t the<br \/>\nends of justice would be met if the full pensionary benefits<br \/>\notherwise  admissible\tto  the\t  respondent  are   withheld<br \/>\npermanently and\t they advised  accordingly.  Thereupon by an<br \/>\norder fated  18th of  December, 1984  the  President  having<br \/>\nregard to  the full  facts and\tcircumstances of  the  case,<br \/>\nordered\t that\tthe  full   pensionary\tbenefits   otherwise<br \/>\nadmissible to the respondent be withheld permanently.\n<\/p>\n<p>     These orders  were challenged  by the respondent before<br \/>\nthe Central  Administrative Tribunal.  By its impugned order<br \/>\nthe Tribunal  has allowed the application of the respondent.<br \/>\nit held\t that no  finding was  recorded in  the departmental<br \/>\nenquiry that  grave and\t serious misconduct, as envisaged in<br \/>\nRule 9, has been committed by the respondent.  Therefore, no<br \/>\naction could  be taken\tunder Rule  9 of  the CCS  (Pension)<br \/>\nRule.  It also held that no allegation of the sort contained<br \/>\nin Rule\t 8(5) explanation  (b) had been levelled against the<br \/>\nrespondent and\tthe misconduct\tattributed to  him was\tonly<br \/>\ncontravention of  Rule\t3(1)  (ii)  and\t (iii)\tof  the\t CCS<br \/>\n(Conduct) Rules, 1984.\tTherefore, action could not be taken<br \/>\nunder Rule  9.\t the appellants have come in appeal from the<br \/>\norder of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The enquiry  against the respondent was initiated while<br \/>\nhe was\tin service.  He was charged under Rule 3(i) (ii) and\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii) of  the  CCS  (Conduct)  Rules.\t The  Rules  are  as<br \/>\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;Rule 3. General<br \/>\n     (1) Every\tGovernment servant shall<br \/>\n     at all times-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (i) maintain absolute integrity;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (iii)   do\t   nothing   which    is<br \/>\n     unbecoming of a Government servant.<br \/>\n     (2)&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     It would  not be  correct\tto  say\t that  a  Government<br \/>\nservant who is charged with not maintaining devotion to duty<br \/>\nor with conduct unbecoming of a Government servant cannot be<br \/>\nheld guilty  of\t grave\tmisconduct.    The  gravity  of\t the<br \/>\nmisconduct would depend upon the nature of the conduct.\t The<br \/>\nTribunal has  wrongly held  that  because  the\tenquiry\t was<br \/>\ninitiated under\t Rule 3(i)  (ii) and  (iii) of\tCCS  Conduct<br \/>\nRules,\tthe  respondent\t cannot\t be  held  guilty  of  grave<br \/>\nmisconduct.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The enquiry  was continued\t under Rule  9\tof  the\t CCS<br \/>\n(Pension) Rules\t after the  date of  superannuation  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondent.   The  Tribunal  is\t of  the  view\tthat  &#8220;grave<br \/>\nmisconduct&#8221; as\tdefend in Rule 8(5) explanation (b) (sic) of<br \/>\nthe CCS\t (Pension) Rules  has not  been committed.  Hence no<br \/>\naction for  grave misconduct can be taken under Rule 9. Now,<br \/>\nunder Rule  8 pension  is subject  to future  good  conduct.<br \/>\nUnder sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 if the authority considers that<br \/>\nthe pensioner  is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it<br \/>\nshall, before  passing an  order, serve\t upon the  pensioner<br \/>\nnotice as  specified therein,  take into  consideration\t the<br \/>\nrepresentation, if  any, submitted  by\tthe  pensioner;\t and<br \/>\nunder sub-clause  (4), where the authority competent to pass<br \/>\nan  order   is\tthe  President,\t the  Union  Public  Service<br \/>\nCommission shall  be consulted\tbefore the  order is passed.<br \/>\nSub-rule (5)  referred to by the Tribunal does not appear to<br \/>\nbe relevant in the present case.  It deals with appeals from<br \/>\norders passed  by an  authority other  than  the  President.<br \/>\nUnder the  explanation (b)  to Rule 8, the expression &#8216;grave<br \/>\nmisconduct&#8217; is\tdefined &#8220;to  include  the  communication  of<br \/>\ndisclosure of  any secret  official code  or password or any<br \/>\nsketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information,<br \/>\nsuch as\t is mentioned  in Section  5 of the Official Secrets<br \/>\nAct, 1923&#8230;&#8230;..&#8221;  The explanation  clearly  extends  grave<br \/>\nmisconduct to  cover communication  of any official secrets.<br \/>\nit is  not an  exhaustive definition.\tThe  Tribunal is not<br \/>\nright in  concluding that  the only kind of misconduct which<br \/>\nshould be  held to be grave misconduct is communication etc.<br \/>\nof an  official secret.\t  There\t can be\t many kinds of grave<br \/>\nmisconduct.\tThe  explanation   does\t not  confine  grave<br \/>\nmisconduct to only the type of misconduct described there.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The relevant  Rule in  the present\t  case\tis  Rule  9.<br \/>\nLearned counsel\t for the respondent contended before us that<br \/>\nRule 9\tcan be\tinvoked only  if the  Government servant has<br \/>\ncaused\tany   pecuniary\t loss\tto  the\t Government.\tThis<br \/>\ncontention is also unsustainable.  Rule 9 as it was stood at<br \/>\nthe relevant time was as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;Rule  9:\tRight  of  President  to<br \/>\n     withhold  or   withdrawn  pension:-<br \/>\n     The President  reserves to\t himself<br \/>\n     the   right   to\twithholding   or<br \/>\n     withdrawing  a   pension  or   part<br \/>\n     thereof,\twhether\t permanently  or<br \/>\n     for  a   specified\t period\t and  or<br \/>\n     ordering recovery from a pension of<br \/>\n     the whole\tor part of any pecuniary<br \/>\n     loss caused  to the  Government if,<br \/>\n     in\t any  departmental  or\tjudicial<br \/>\n     proceedings, the pensioner is found<br \/>\n     guilty  of\t  grave\t misconduct   or<br \/>\n     negligence during the period of his<br \/>\n     service, including service rendered<br \/>\n     upon re-employment after retirement<br \/>\n     provided  that   the  Union  Public<br \/>\n     Service   Commission    shall    be<br \/>\n     consulted\t before\t   orders    are<br \/>\n     passed.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Rule 3(1)(o)  defines &#8220;pension&#8221;  as including  gratuity<br \/>\nexcept when  the term  &#8220;pension&#8221; is used in contradiction to<br \/>\n&#8220;gratuity&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Rule  9  gives  to\t the  President\t the  right  of\t (1)<br \/>\nwithholding or\twithdrawing a  pension or  part thereof\t (2)<br \/>\neither\tpermanently  or\t for  a\t specified  period  and\t (3)<br \/>\nordering recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any<br \/>\npecuniary loss\tcaused to the Government.  This power can be<br \/>\nexercised if,  in any  departmental or judicial proceedings,<br \/>\nthe  pensioner\tis  found  guilty  of  grave  misconduct  or<br \/>\nnegligence during  the period  of his  service.\t  The  power<br \/>\ntherefore, can be exercised in all cases where the pensioner<br \/>\nis found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the<br \/>\nperiod of  his service.\t  One of the powers of the President<br \/>\nis to  recover from  pension, in  a case where any pecuniary<br \/>\nloss is\t caused to  the Government,  that loss.\t  This is an<br \/>\nindependent power in addition to the power of withdrawing or<br \/>\nwithholding pension.   The  contention\tof  the\t respondent,<br \/>\ntherefore, that\t Rule 9\t cannot be  invoked even in cases of<br \/>\ngrave misconduct  unless pecuniary  loss is  caused  to\t the<br \/>\nGovernment, is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  Tribunal   has  held\t that  no  charge  of  grave<br \/>\nmisconduct  was\t  framed  or   found  proved   against\t the<br \/>\nrespondent.   This  is\tclearly\t incorrect  looking  to\t the<br \/>\nexpress language  of the  charge as  framed and\t the enquiry<br \/>\nreport.\t    The\t charge\t as  framed  expressly\tcharged\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  with   having  committed   grave  misconduct  by<br \/>\nremaining absent  from duty  without  authorisation  and  by<br \/>\ncontinuing to  disobey Government  orders issued  to him for<br \/>\njoining duty.\the was charged with lack of devotion to duty<br \/>\nand of conduct unbecoming a Government servant, and this was<br \/>\nviolative of the provisions of Rule 3(1) sub-clause (ii) and\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules.  The finding also is that this<br \/>\ncharge of  grave misconduct  has been  proved in the enquiry<br \/>\nreport.\t  The conduct,\ttherefore, of  the respondent  falls<br \/>\nunder Rule  9 and  the order  of the President dated 18th of<br \/>\nDecember, 1984 cannot be faulted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Our attention  is drawn  to a decision of this Court in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/79661\/\">D.V. Kapoor  V. Union  of India and Ors. (AIR<\/a> 1990 SC 1923).<br \/>\nIn that\t case also  disciplinary proceedings  were initiated<br \/>\nagainst the  Government servant under Rule 3(ii)(iii) of the<br \/>\nCCS (Conduct) Rules and were later continued under Rule 9 of<br \/>\nthe CCS\t (Pension)  Rules,  1972.  The\tcharge\tagainst\t the<br \/>\nappellant there\t was that  he  absented\t himself  from\tduty<br \/>\nwithout any  authorisation and\tdespite his  being asked  to<br \/>\njoin duty he remained absent.  The Inquiry Officer, however,<br \/>\nheld that  his absenting  himself from\tduty  could  not  be<br \/>\ntermed as  entirely wilful  because he could not move due to<br \/>\ntermed as  entirely wilful  because he could not move due to<br \/>\nhis wife&#8217;s  illness.   The Inquiry  Officer recommended that<br \/>\nthe   case   of\t  the\tappellant   should   be\t  considered<br \/>\nsympathetically.   The recommendation  and  finding  of\t the<br \/>\nInquiry Officer\t were accepted by the President. However, it<br \/>\nwas decided to withhold full gratuity and payment of pension<br \/>\nin consultation\t with the  Union Public\t Service Commission.<br \/>\nIn these  circumstances, this  Court held  that there was no<br \/>\nfinding that the appellant had committed grave misconduct as<br \/>\ncharged and  that the exercise of power under Rule 9 was not<br \/>\nwarranted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The present  case, though\tprima facie  similar to\t the<br \/>\nabove case,  contains some vital differences.  No legitimate<br \/>\nreason has  been found\tfor the respondent absenting himself<br \/>\nor refusing  to join at Delhi.\tThe Inquiry Officer has come<br \/>\nto a  conclusion  that\tthe  respondent\t wilfully  disobeyed<br \/>\nGovernment orders  and only  gave untenable  excuses  first,<br \/>\nregarding his  illness, and thereafter his wife&#8217;s illness in<br \/>\norder not  to join  duty.  It is also found that the conduct<br \/>\nwas premeditated  and the respondent had already purchased a<br \/>\nhouse at  London at  the beginning  of his tenure indicating<br \/>\nthat he\t had no intention at any time of returning to Delhi.<br \/>\nIn the\tpresent\t case  the  Inquiry  Officer  has  in  these<br \/>\ncircumstances, come  to a  finding  holding  the  respondent<br \/>\nguilty of grave misconduct.  Therefore, looking to the facts<br \/>\nof the\tpresent case the charge of grave misconduct has been<br \/>\ncorrectly held\tto be  proved and,  therefore, the  order of<br \/>\n18th of December, 1984 cannot be faulted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The order\tof 17.6.1987  is an  order by  the President<br \/>\nrejecting the  revision petition  of the  respondent.\tBoth<br \/>\nthese orders  are, in  the premises,  upheld.\tThe impugned<br \/>\norder of  the Tribunal\tis set\taside and  the original writ<br \/>\npetition filed\tby the\trespondent in  the Delhi  High Court<br \/>\nwhich  was   subsequently   transferred\t  to   the   Central<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal at New Delhi is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  appeal   is  accordingly  allowed.\tThere  will,<br \/>\nhowever, be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Union Of India And Ors vs Shri B. Dev on 14 August, 1998 Author: M S V.Manohar.J. Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, S. Rajendra Babu PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI B. DEV DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/08\/1998 BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, S. RAJENDRA BABU ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U [&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-207226","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 And Ors vs Shri B. Dev on 14 August, 1998 - 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-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India And Ors vs Shri B. Dev on 14 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-21T02:12:35+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=\"13 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-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India And Ors vs Shri B. Dev on 14 August, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-21T02:12:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998\"},\"wordCount\":2496,\"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-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998\",\"name\":\"Union Of India And Ors vs Shri B. Dev on 14 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-21T02:12:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India And Ors vs Shri B. Dev on 14 August, 1998\"}]},{\"@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 And Ors vs Shri B. Dev on 14 August, 1998 - 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-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India And Ors vs Shri B. Dev on 14 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-21T02:12:35+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India And Ors vs Shri B. Dev on 14 August, 1998","datePublished":"1998-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-21T02:12:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998"},"wordCount":2496,"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-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998","name":"Union Of India And Ors vs Shri B. Dev on 14 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-21T02:12:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-shri-b-dev-on-14-august-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India And Ors vs Shri B. Dev on 14 August, 1998"}]},{"@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\/207226","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=207226"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207226\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207226"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207226"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207226"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}