{"id":219754,"date":"2009-09-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009"},"modified":"2019-03-17T14:23:17","modified_gmt":"2019-03-17T08:53:17","slug":"central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Central Bank Of India vs The Presiding Officer Central … on 10 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Central Bank Of India vs The Presiding Officer Central … on 10 September, 2009<\/div>\n
C.W.P. No.16850 of 2001 (O&M)                       -1-\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND\n             HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                              C.W.P. No.16850 of 2001 (O&M)\n                              Date of Decision:10.09.2009\n\nCentral Bank of India\n                                                           .....Petitioner\n\n                                Versus\n\nThe Presiding Officer Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-\nLabour Court, Chandigarh another.\n\n                                                          ...Respondents<\/pre>\n
Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate
\n         with Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate
\n         for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
          Mr. D. S. Nalwa, Advocate
\n          for Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate
\n          for respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN<\/p>\n
1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
\n       the judgment ? No.\n<\/p>\n
2.     To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No.\n<\/p>\n
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.\n<\/p>\n
                            -.-\n<\/p>\n
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)<\/p>\n
1.        The writ petition challenges the direction of the Labour<\/p>\n
Court accepting the reference and favours the workman with a finding<\/p>\n
that the order of dismissal was unjustified. The lesser punishment has<\/p>\n
awarded by the Labour Court was witholding of two increments with<\/p>\n
cumulative effect, while directing reinstatement.<\/p>\n
2.        The gravanan of charge was that the workman had been<\/p>\n
entrusted Rs.778.02\/- by the Manager of the Bank for payment of<\/p>\n
telephone bill raised against the branch office Adalat Bazar, Patiala.<\/p>\n
The workman had undertaken to deposit the sum but did not do so.
\n C.W.P. No.16850 of 2001 (O&M)                      -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
The telephone connection had been disconnected for a shortwhile,<\/p>\n
before reconnection on payment of charges by the Bank. A charge-<\/p>\n
sheet had been issued against the workman and the workman had by<\/p>\n
that time deposited the amount of Rs.778.02\/- to the Bank. In the<\/p>\n
inquiry, he pleaded that he was admitting the misconduct and also<\/p>\n
pleaded that he had blemishless service and he could be visited with<\/p>\n
lesser punishment. He purported to rely on regulation 19.12 sub-<\/p>\n
clause ‘e’ which provided that an inquiry need not be held if the<\/p>\n
employee made a voluntary admission of his guilty in his reply to the<\/p>\n
show cause notice.         The workman was evidently acting on an<\/p>\n
assumption that in all cases, an inquiry would become unnecessary if<\/p>\n
voluntary admission of guilt had been made and therefore he pleaded<\/p>\n
for a lesser punishment.\n<\/p>\n
3.        The Inquiry Officer gave a report stating that in view of the<\/p>\n
admission of the misconduct, the charge against the workman had<\/p>\n
been taken as true and the management ultimately took a decision to<\/p>\n
dismiss him from the service on the report of the inquiry officer.<\/p>\n
4.        The workman had challenged the order of dismissal by<\/p>\n
seeking a reference before the Labour Court. He sought to prove that<\/p>\n
the inquiry officer was wrong in assuming that he had admitted to the<\/p>\n
misconduct himself. The admission was qualified in one sense that<\/p>\n
the workman did not want the continuance of an inquiry and he was<\/p>\n
pleading for a lesser punishment due to the fact that an amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.778.02\/- had not been used by him but he had handed over the<\/p>\n
amount and the bill to his friend for depositing the same but he did not<\/p>\n
deposit the same. However, the amount had been redeposited by the
\n C.W.P. No.16850 of 2001 (O&M)                   -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
workman on 11.4.1985, following a letter given to the manager of the<\/p>\n
bank on the previous day on 10.4.1985. The charge-sheet itself had<\/p>\n
been issued subsequently on 15.11.1985.      The contention of the<\/p>\n
workman was that an inquiry officer went on wrong assumption that<\/p>\n
he had admitted the guilt. According to the workman, though the<\/p>\n
money which had been entrusted to him had not been utilised for<\/p>\n
payment of the telephone bill by him he was under the belief that his<\/p>\n
friend to whom the money was entrusted could have paid.<\/p>\n
Significantly, in this case the inquiry officer did not reject the<\/p>\n
explanation offered by the workman as false. The Labour Court found<\/p>\n
that the workman had been actually cross-examined by the<\/p>\n
representative of the management and that the workman had also<\/p>\n
admitted of the facts in the cross-examination relating to the<\/p>\n
misconduct and did not desire the continuation of departmental<\/p>\n
inquiry. However, the Labour Court reasoned that if the management<\/p>\n
wanted to punish him with penalty of dismissal, the departmental<\/p>\n
inquiry must have been held by the management. The Court further<\/p>\n
observed that facts and gravity of the misconduct committed by the<\/p>\n
workman was not so grave that required a penalty of dismissal. He<\/p>\n
invoked powers of the Court under Section 11-A of the Industrial<\/p>\n
Disputes Act, 1947 and decided to substitute the above mentioned<\/p>\n
punishment.\n<\/p>\n
5.       Learned counsel appearing for the management contends<\/p>\n
that when there was a clear finding even by the Labour Court that the<\/p>\n
workman had admitted to the guilt. The misconduct attributed to the<\/p>\n
workman which was misappropriation, was serious enough to confirm
\n C.W.P. No.16850 of 2001 (O&M)                     -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
the punishment of dismissal and the Labour Court ought not to have<\/p>\n
interfered with the punishment.     Learned counsel also refers to a<\/p>\n
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Janatha Bazar (South<\/p>\n
Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) and others<\/p>\n
Vs. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha and others reported in<\/p>\n
(2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 517. The Court held in that case of<\/p>\n
misappropriation of the value of goods amounting to Rs.24,239.97<\/p>\n
and Rs.19,884.06 during the period of 1977-78 were serious enough<\/p>\n
and the Labour Court’s intervention for a lessor punishment by<\/p>\n
invoking the provision of Section 11-A was misplaced. In case of<\/p>\n
proved misappropriation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there<\/p>\n
was no question of considering the past reocrd. It is the discretion of<\/p>\n
the employer to consider the same in appropriate cases but the Labour<\/p>\n
Court cannot substitute the penalty imposed by the employer in such<\/p>\n
cases.\n<\/p>\n
6.        In this case, if the inquiry officer had held that the<\/p>\n
explanation offered by the workman that he had entrusted the money<\/p>\n
to his friend and that he did not make the payment as he had requested<\/p>\n
to him was false and that he had retained the money, it could be said<\/p>\n
that the charge of misappropriation was clearly established. In this<\/p>\n
case, there was no such finding by the inquiry officer. On the other<\/p>\n
hand, he was entering a finding of guilt by the so called admission of<\/p>\n
the workman which was taken in a truncated form by the inquiry<\/p>\n
officer. It is a fundmental precept of the law of evidence that an<\/p>\n
admission in order to be binding shall be taken as a whole and shall<\/p>\n
not taken piecemeal. If the workman had stated that he had entrusted
\n C.W.P. No.16850 of 2001 (O&M)                     -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
the money to another person and that he had not utilised it for his own<\/p>\n
purpose, then, if such statement was true at best, it could have been<\/p>\n
only taken as a negligent act.    It was after all open to the inquiry<\/p>\n
officer to reject such a statement. On the other hand, the inquiry<\/p>\n
officer accepted the statement but misconstrued it as an admission of<\/p>\n
misconduct and went ahead to return a finding of guilt and that the<\/p>\n
charges had been fully established.    Learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the Management wanted to contend that the workman had actually<\/p>\n
admitted the misconduct and desired lesser punishment. In my view,<\/p>\n
the admission of misconduct must be understood in the context of how<\/p>\n
the admission was tendered before the inquiry officer or before the<\/p>\n
Manager of the Bank. The workman did not go the whole hog and<\/p>\n
state that the entire misconduct attributed to him was admitted by him.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, the admission was for a plea for lesser punishment<\/p>\n
without having to go through the trauma of a trial and laced with a<\/p>\n
plea that he had given the money to his friend and expected him to<\/p>\n
make the remittence. At least when a dispute was raised and the<\/p>\n
proceedings were before the Labour Court, if the management had<\/p>\n
offered to prove the misconduct and established that the so called<\/p>\n
entrustment as pleaded by him to be not true, the Labour Court could<\/p>\n
have examined such evidence. The management did not avail of such<\/p>\n
an opportunity. It rest contended with producing the inquiry officer’s<\/p>\n
report and the document filed before him.\n<\/p>\n
7.        While the Courts intervention in the matter of punsihment<\/p>\n
even invoking powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes<\/p>\n
Act, 1947 are limited to the parameters set under the said section
\n C.W.P. No.16850 of 2001 (O&M)                      -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
itself, the Labour Court would be justified in an appropriate case to<\/p>\n
interfere with lesser punishment if it finds that the admission of<\/p>\n
misconduct was laced with other mitigating factor as well. Here was a<\/p>\n
case where workman was not completely disowning his lapse. He was<\/p>\n
aware that he had received the money and he did not himself make the<\/p>\n
remittence for the telephone bill. He claimed that he had entrusted it<\/p>\n
to another person who did not make the payment. If that statement<\/p>\n
must be rejected, it shall be found in the report of the inquiry officer<\/p>\n
himself. Such a definite finding was not available. The Labour Court<\/p>\n
was, therefore, justified in interfering with the punishment, that for a<\/p>\n
person who had been negligent in his conduct ought not to have been<\/p>\n
visited with the maximum punishment of dismissal from service. The<\/p>\n
intervention which the Labour Court made, in my view, does not<\/p>\n
suffer from any vice for being subjected to judicial review under<\/p>\n
Article 226\/227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
8.        The award of the Labour Court modifying the punishment in<\/p>\n
the way it did, in the circumstances, would require no interference. It<\/p>\n
is confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed.         There shall be<\/p>\n
however no direction as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ( K. KANNAN )
\n                                                       JUDGE
\nSeptember 10, 2009
\nashish\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Central Bank Of India vs The Presiding Officer Central … on 10 September, 2009 C.W.P. No.16850 of 2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.16850 of 2001 (O&M) Date of Decision:10.09.2009 Central Bank of India …..Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer Central Government, […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219754","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCentral Bank Of India vs The Presiding Officer Central ... on 10 September, 2009 - 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\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Central Bank Of India vs The Presiding Officer Central ... on 10 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-17T08:53:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"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\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Central Bank Of India vs The Presiding Officer Central … on 10 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-17T08:53:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1601,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Central Bank Of India vs The Presiding Officer Central ... on 10 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-17T08:53:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Central Bank Of India vs The Presiding Officer Central … on 10 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Central Bank Of India vs The Presiding Officer Central ... on 10 September, 2009 - 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\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Central Bank Of India vs The Presiding Officer Central ... on 10 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-17T08:53:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Central Bank Of India vs The Presiding Officer Central … on 10 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-17T08:53:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009"},"wordCount":1601,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009","name":"Central Bank Of India vs The Presiding Officer Central ... on 10 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-17T08:53:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bank-of-india-vs-the-presiding-officer-central-on-10-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Central Bank Of India vs The Presiding Officer Central … on 10 September, 2009"}]},{"@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\/219754","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=219754"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219754\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219754"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219754"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219754"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}