{"id":216181,"date":"2010-09-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-26T05:06:49","modified_gmt":"2016-06-25T23:36:49","slug":"sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri S. Govindaraju vs The Divisional Controller on 14 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri S. Govindaraju vs The Divisional Controller on 14 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: V.G.Sabhahit & B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE I-4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, \nPRESENT _ I  'V \n\nTKE HON'BLE MR.JUsTIcEmIr.G.sA.EI\u00a7AIIIT[j  I\n\nAND   .. _ A\n\nTm: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTI_QE E;I_}_;'NAGA.I%ATIINA';  1'\n\nWRIT APPEAL NO. 42'}'o_\"1I= 2010\" (I,-I\u00a7sRT<;)\n\n Agw _ \nMISC. '9i_[;'_~_NO._'_ 1593  2010\n\nBETWEEN\n\nSR1 s. GOVINDARAJU;\ns\/o M. SANDAPPA.'  1 \nAGED ABQUT"50A1--\u00a5EAF-S-...A  \nR\/ATNO.138._f\/'2, '    ~\n3RD CROSS,"'AKKI1;II11\\1NL4;NA:-IALL1.;\n\n   \nBANGALQREV 560vv.Q27T.   ._ -\n\n. 4. V    ...APPELLANT\n{BY SR1 K-._sIv.:NIvAsA,.-- 3: M \/s. STM AssTs., ADVS..}\n\n *  _ 'I'Iv\u00a3E\u00a7'I),IVISIONAL 'CGNTROLLER\n, 1'\u00e9'.QW KNoWI\\.J_ AS CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER.\n\n'BANGALORE METROPOLITAN\n\n .Tf?_ANSPO.R'I'.CORPORATION\n\n BANGALORE \u00bb\u00bb 560 027\n\nCEI\\IT'RAL' <)Fi+'IcE,\n ROAD\u00bb; SHANTHINAGAR.\n\n. . .RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
 THIS WA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE<\/p>\n
   I}(ARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
\n‘ \u00bb  ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.<\/p>\n
14770\/2007 (L–KSRTC} DATED 20\/06\/2008.<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
MISC. w IS FILED UNDER SECTION 5 or’ THE
\nLIMITATION ACT PRAYING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF’
\n569 DAYS IN FILING THE ABOVE APPEAL T0 MEE’1’~=_THE
\nENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.\n<\/p>\n
THIS WA A\/W MlSC.W COMING
\nPRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, sAI\u00bb:IHAIIrrA– <\/p>\n
DELIVERED TI-IE FOLLOWING:~
\nJUDGMEN’I\u00a7”t”\n<\/p>\n
This appeal is filed by the  <\/p>\n
in W. P. No.I477o\/o7 being-,a:ggrieYed._ by dt. ” A<\/p>\n
2031 June 2008, wherein the” Single Jjudge of<\/p>\n
this Court has  the award<\/p>\n
passedtV”by”ethfe   Court, Bangalore in<\/p>\n
I Referericelbl dismissed the Writ Petition.<\/p>\n
 ‘E’The,Vappel1a~Iit herein was working as<\/p>\n
  in th’e”respondent — Bangalore Metropolitan<\/p>\n
 :.4Cor”poration since 1984. While he was<\/p>\n
coII._ductVir1g\u20acth:e bus on 25.12.2002 on route No.164\/5,<\/p>\n
 sazne was intercepted by the checking squad at<\/p>\n
   Circle Stage No.3 and it was found that there<\/p>\n
  it ygrere irregularities committed by the appellant in respect<\/p>\n
it of 3 passengers travelling in a group despite collecting<\/p>\n
ixksg<\/p>\n
the fare amount of Rs.2 each, he had failed to issue<\/p>\n
tickets. The further allegation is that in res.pe_ct.4’_d’of<\/p>\n
another group of 3 passengers and one n1ore’:i.ndivifduai… t.<\/p>\n
passenger, the appellant had failed.__to ctollectjthe  uh’<\/p>\n
and did not issue tickets of the  <\/p>\n
each and that appellant  to  of ” it<\/p>\n
Rs.3\/– each and issue,–tickets-‘to.  travelling
\nin a group. Since the  ibygthe appellant
\nwas not satisfatwtoijy,  was held by
\nframing chiargjss above said misconduct.
\nThe   the charges have
\nbeen   report to the Disciplinary<\/p>\n
Authority a’1id_’the: D’isc’ip1inary Authority accepted the<\/p>\n
 “vrep’ort of. the Intres’tigation Officer and imposed penalty<\/p>\n
 of  service. Being aggrieved by the said<\/p>\n
order of  the appellant herein raised Industrial<\/p>\n
 Reference No.68\/2005 on the \ufb01le of the III<\/p>\n
A  Labour Court, Bangalore. The Labour Court by<\/p>\n
jttdgment and award dt. 21.7.2007 held that the<\/p>\n
V charges against the workman had been proved and also<\/p>\n
held that the imposition of penalty of dismissal having<\/p>\n
regard to the nature of proved misconduct and”””129<\/p>\n
default cases prior to the charges in the  2<\/p>\n
there was no merit in the Reference and ‘acco’r_idiVngly–…’d_ V’ <\/p>\n
rejected the Reference. Being <\/p>\n
award passed by the Labour’C0urt1″dt. 2g1:,_.’:{‘<\/p>\n
appellant herein had preferre.d”W.P.V”l\\loI’:.l47Z0}2007<\/p>\n
contending that the charge   appellant herein
\nhas not been proved Court had not<\/p>\n
considered   behalf of the<\/p>\n
 th’ea”eviderIce”:of two passengers who
\nhave  paid money and collected<\/p>\n
tickets and “t,h’esamAe_ was lost. Under coercion, penalty<\/p>\n
‘0 V’  was~Ccdl}ec’tepd frorrfthem and that enquiry was not held<\/p>\n
   law. The Labour Court ought to<\/p>\n
have allovveddl the Reference and ordered reinstatement<\/p>\n
  Z hackwages. The learned Single Judge after<\/p>\n
0′ ‘i.con.sidering the contention of the learned counsel<\/p>\n
 = …–appearing for the parties, by order dt. 20.6.2008 held<\/p>\n
that the evidence adduced by the Management<\/p>\n
comprising of four charges against the appellant in the<\/p>\n
offence memo at EX.M.1, Unpunched tickets’.-were<\/p>\n
seized as per Ex.M.2, penalty receipts were <\/p>\n
per Ex.M.3 to 7. The passengers’ statcririenti <\/p>\n
recorded as per ‘E3x.M,8, the seiZted'”way*.-_bi;i1<\/p>\n
and the checking report is at, ._ It istptrlkfft the ~_<\/p>\n
of the petitioner that there  i11\u00a5v.Ii11″rb’etween him
\nand the checking staff.  aniount was
\nreceived in the presence”   p-eti.ti’o_1\u00a7.e–r without any<\/p>\n
protest and    who have paid<\/p>\n
the pentaittyeawierett by”t’he petitioner in support
\nof his case – ,Corporation has not cross<\/p>\n
examined the_rr1.,’it is not in dispute that on an earlier<\/p>\n
t”-occasion, the petitioner was dismissed from service,<\/p>\n
.wh_eich subject matter of adjudication of<\/p>\n
referenc~e  1988. The Labour Court has recorded<\/p>\n
 that pl-t:<jr to that dispute, the petitioner was invoived in<\/p>\n
  'A.V1_V2\/Lttcases. After he was reinstated by the Labour Court<\/p>\n
   reference No.27\/ 1988, he was again involved in 129<\/p>\n
cases of misconduct, which is not in dispute. Following<\/p>\n
the decisions of the H0n'ble Supreme Court, ._ the<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge held that charge had been_.jpr:0V_ed<\/p>\n
and penalty of dismissal was justified and  .<\/p>\n
declined to interfere with the.\u00bb~aw4ard'_'H .a:nd:_ ll<\/p>\n
dismissed the Writ Petition. Beingtagng\ufb01eved <\/p>\n
order dt. 20.6.2008 this ep;\u00a7ee1 re" \u00a311ed_:byitheveewrit " T'<\/p>\n
petitioner on 9.2.201!) .:I'hei7e"i.a 'delay 0f'569~ldays in
\n\ufb01ling the Writ appeal   has been
\nfiled for  the  the appeal
\nsupported  —\n<\/p>\n
   ‘lithe learned counsel
\nappearing lfor’  who vehemently argued<\/p>\n
that ;ha’.xting t0 the nature of charge. except in<\/p>\n
  persdns from whom according to the<\/p>\n
Al”1.3spe\ufb01defitV__rtieiiey had been collected and ticket had<\/p>\n
not””bee:.1:isst2ed and in respect of others it is the case of<\/p>\n
 Ktheerespbndent that neither fare had been collected nor<\/p>\n
.l  ticliets are issued. The evidence adduced on behalf of<\/p>\n
“the appellant namely Sri Manjunath S\/0 Sri<\/p>\n
Gurupadappa who was examined as second witness for<\/p>\n
the appellant and Sri Nagaraj S\/o Sri Venkatar_am:’ailah<\/p>\n
who was examined as third witness for  ~<\/p>\n
would clearly show that they    Ru<\/p>\n
collected the tickets but had lostdiiitphei<\/p>\n
Wherefore, they were con1pe1l,e:’d..V_to p’ay__ “the ” V<\/p>\n
evidence of said witnesses has”i’ernained tlncontifoverted
\nas they have not been  the learned
\ncounsel  — respondent
\nherein. It  ::tl’iat delay has been
\n cause as the appellant
\nwas   and could not prefer<\/p>\n
the appeal if:\n<\/p>\n
  We have given careful consideration to the<\/p>\n
 con*tent.ion’\u00abof”vthe learned Counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
appe-llant a\u00a7n_dA’sIscrutinised the material on record.<\/p>\n
it  The material on record would clearly show<\/p>\n
‘  that ‘when the appellant herein was conducting the bus<\/p>\n
on 25.12.2002 the bus was intercepted and thereafter,<\/p>\n
on the irregularities being found, charges were framed<\/p>\n
against him as his explanation was not foiinci:’:tof”g:’l(ievi..<\/p>\n
satisfactory, disciplinary enquiry was held.   it<\/p>\n
pertains to the following:\n<\/p>\n
“a. That, the first party  <\/p>\n
tickets to three passengers trairellir1’g;V’i’n”a”:
\ngroup from Adugoldi  Shanthinvagar
\ndespite col1ec’ti_ng  “~.ret1i,1.\u00a7Site fare of
\nRs.2\/5 from  place
\n     pi    <\/p>\n
b.    hladp neither collected<\/p>\n
    \u00ab:t\/  it \/  one passenger<\/p>\n
I traVell’i.n:_gV_ifr.orn::’ BT M Lay out Mayohail<\/p>\n
2 import issi__1ed_  to him.\n<\/p>\n
  Thati._.the first party had neither collected
\n tile farewof Rs.4\/– from three passengers
\n  from BTM Layout to Mayohall<\/p>\n
 pd .  issued tickets to them.\n<\/p>\n
  “That, the first party had neither collected
\n‘V ii the fare of Rs.3\/– from 3 passengers<\/p>\n
travelling from Kalayanamantappa to<\/p>\n
Mayohall nor issued tickets to them.”<\/p>\n
E}<\/p>\n
6. The enquiring authority held that the<\/p>\n
charges have been proved and the Disciplinary<\/p>\n
Authority accepted the report of the  _<\/p>\n
imposing penalty of dismissal from sei’vi’ce.:”_wand ‘theft “=<\/p>\n
appellant herein raised a Dispute  <\/p>\n
Court, Bangalore which was”-~.numbered  Reference -. ”<\/p>\n
No.68\/2005. The said reference was resisteqf? by the
\nrespondent contending   been proved
\nand the Labot1r::Cour’t:_”ljy’ \u00a2:}a\u00a2r\u00ab..’tttp, 21\u00a77;2o07 held that<\/p>\n
charge against. been proved and the
\npunishments_dismissal”fromservice was also justified
\nhaving regard to”tl_’1~e’f’p.rfevio-us conduct of the appellant<\/p>\n
as  had’ Vbeeri removed from service and later<\/p>\n
‘ if “‘–reinstated and therevvere 129 default cases against him<\/p>\n
 t-.an_dl rej ected the Reference.<\/p>\n
\/*….l:’ There is no merit in the contention of the<\/p>\n
,…..\n<\/p>\n
  ‘t1.Vea-\ufb02ied counsel appearing for the appellant that the<\/p>\n
 ~\u00bb-evidence of passengers who have been examined by<\/p>\n
him, namely, Manjunath, witness No.2 and Nagaraj,<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
Witness No.3 on his behalf has remained<\/p>\n
uncontroverted. Their evidence would show’<\/p>\n
appellant had issued tickets to them and  .<\/p>\n
ticket and paid penaiiy under coercion. _Thei15’_’;cVide1’1eeV_ id”<\/p>\n
is uncontroverted as they were not eiarained ‘try’ cou\u00a7nseii.:<\/p>\n
appearing for respondent. W-‘ep4″‘have heel: tvaiEen_;thro\u20ac1gh * it<\/p>\n
the evidence of said w,itnesses–;VVV:n’a1n–e}y. Maxijunath and
\nNagara] and we \ufb01nd  theV:e:taini’n.at.1on~in–chief of
\nManjunath that 6 tickets on
\nbehalf of the the squad came and
\n it was found that
\nthe  since the checking squad<\/p>\n
threatenedt they would be taken to police<\/p>\n
‘JV”*-statidn;;’~.they paid”””pena1ty- of Rs.120\/~ and obtained<\/p>\n
   Similarly, the evidence of Nagaraj<\/p>\n
wot-dd  that though he states that he had<\/p>\n
x””‘-__w”purchased tickets from the appeilaiat herein, the same<\/p>\n
   test in transit and he had to pay penalty of Rs.60\/~<\/p>\n
d    the checking squad as per 34.0.2. The very fact that<\/p>\n
the said witnesses have not been cross examined would<\/p>\n
we<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
not in any way affect the evidence adduced by the<\/p>\n
workman to disprove the charge as evidence <\/p>\n
the eXamination–in–chief itself is inconsisitentg.’j=–.xiot._._”‘ .<\/p>\n
credibie and worthy of acceptar_1;ce__to prob”ah_a}is’ev”theE “‘<\/p>\n
case of the appellant herein. Wherefore, having <\/p>\n
to the concurrent \ufb01nding ofO.ti1.e -‘the = O’<\/p>\n
Learned Single Judge. thatVAp_.thje.._chargesvagainst the
\nappellant have been  any error or
\niliegality in thetsaid    the charges
\nagainst the    So far as the
\npenaityvdofv   having regard to the
\nproved  and the decisions of the<\/p>\n
Honble stfpreme. ‘.’\u00abCevu1?t” in the Case of DEVENDRA<\/p>\n
 V’ :vs–.  STATE ROAD TRANSPORT<\/p>\n
 _;f’eported in (2002) 9 sec 544, in the case of<\/p>\n
  OAMANAGER, RAJASTWW STATE ROAD<\/p>\n
 CORPORATION vs. SOHAN LAL<\/a> reported in<\/p>\n
   8 sec 218, in the case of DIVISIONAL<\/p>\n
 L’ WCONTROLLER, KSRTC {NWKRTC) vs. Arr. MANE<\/a> reported in<\/p>\n
 2005 see [L 81 s) 407 and in the case of DIVISIONAL<\/p>\n
F\\<\/p>\n
keys<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
CONTROLLER. NEKRTC VS. H. AMARESH reported in<\/p>\n
(2006) 6 sec 187, and the fact that the learned<\/p>\n
Judge upheld that the order penalty  .<\/p>\n
accordingly, We hold that the _ord_er  ll’<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge is justified.&ari_d*~<\/p>\n
from any error or illegality  cal1″foIvintverfe_rence in * it<\/p>\n
this appeal.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8. Evert   V’  clear from the
\naverments  there is a delay
\nof    which has not been
\nexplained:   ‘sufficient cause though<\/p>\n
according to”the\u00bbaV’eri’ne\ufb01ts made in the affidavit filed in<\/p>\n
 tpthelllalpplication that the appellant Was<\/p>\n
 chickengunya, Medical Certificate to that<\/p>\n
effect ftirnished and the cause for delay of 569<\/p>\n
l.u””–__VV”days has: not been substantiated, apart from making<\/p>\n
  serving statement which is not substantiated.<\/p>\n
l    sufficient cause is made out for the inordinate delay.<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed on iimitation and also H<\/p>\n
on merits.\n<\/p>\n
V~}udqeddQdd);”\n<\/p>\n
  T’  <\/p>\n
BNS<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri S. Govindaraju vs The Divisional Controller on 14 September, 2010 Author: V.G.Sabhahit & B.V.Nagarathna IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE I-4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, PRESENT _ I ‘V TKE HON’BLE MR.JUsTIcEmIr.G.sA.EI\u00a7AIIIT[j I AND .. _ A Tm: HON’BLE MRS.JUSTI_QE E;I_}_;’NAGA.I%ATIINA’; 1′ WRIT APPEAL NO. 42′}’o_”1I= 2010″ […]<\/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-216181","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri S. Govindaraju vs The Divisional Controller on 14 September, 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\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri S. Govindaraju vs The Divisional Controller on 14 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-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=\"2010-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-25T23:36:49+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri S. Govindaraju vs The Divisional Controller on 14 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-25T23:36:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1743,\"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\\\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri S. Govindaraju vs The Divisional Controller on 14 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-25T23:36:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri S. Govindaraju vs The Divisional Controller on 14 September, 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":"Sri S. Govindaraju vs The Divisional Controller on 14 September, 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\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri S. Govindaraju vs The Divisional Controller on 14 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-25T23:36:49+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri S. Govindaraju vs The Divisional Controller on 14 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-25T23:36:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010"},"wordCount":1743,"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\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010","name":"Sri S. Govindaraju vs The Divisional Controller on 14 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-25T23:36:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-govindaraju-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-14-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri S. Govindaraju vs The Divisional Controller on 14 September, 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\/216181","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=216181"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216181\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216181"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216181"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216181"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}