{"id":223175,"date":"2007-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007"},"modified":"2017-01-20T01:53:01","modified_gmt":"2017-01-19T20:23:01","slug":"the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"The Special Officer vs R.Devendram on 4 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Special Officer vs R.Devendram on 4 April, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\nDATED: 04\/4\/2007\n\nCORAM :\nTHE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA\nand\nTHE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.VEERARAGHAVAN\n\nRev.Appl.Nos.45,46 of 2006\nin\nW.A.(MD)Nos.81,82 of 2006\n\n\nThe Special Officer,\nPudukkottai District Central\nCo.operative Bank Limited,\nPudukkottai.\t\t.. Petitioner in both Review Applications\n\nVs\n\n1. R.Devendram\t\t.. Respondents\n\t\t\t   in Rev.Appl.No.45 of 2006\n2. SP.AM.Sundaram\t.. Respondents in\n\t\t           Rev.Appl.No.46 of 2006\n\n3. The Registrar of Co-operative\n   Societies, Kilpauk,\n   Chennai-10.\t\t.. Respondents in \t\t\t\t\t\n\t         \t   both Review applications\n\nPrayer in R.A.No.45 of 2006: Review petition filed under Order 47 Rule-1 Code of\nCivil Procedure against the order dated 15.11.2006 passed in W.A. No.81 of 2006.\n\nPrayer in R.A.No.46 of 2006: Review petition filed under Order 47 Rule-1 Code of\nCivil Procedure against the order dated 15.11.2006 passed in W.A. No.82 of 2006.\n\n!For Petitioner\t\t: Mr.K.Jayaraman\n^For RR 1\nin both applications)\t: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,\n\t  \t\t  Senior Counsel\nFor RR 2\t\t: Mr.R.Janakiramalu\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>Order of the court was made by F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThese review petitions have been preferred by the second respondent in the<br \/>\nwrit appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Mr.K.Jayaraman, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted<br \/>\nthat on the date of hearing namely 15.11.2006, the counsel could not be present<br \/>\nand therefore, certain vital legal questions involved in the writ appeals could<br \/>\nnot be placed before the Division Bench but for which the order in the writ<br \/>\nappeals would not have been passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The review petitioner has raised three contentions namely, that in the<br \/>\nlight of the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2006(4) CTC 689<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/186075\/\">(K.Marappan V. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal), the<\/a><br \/>\nwrit petition itself was not maintainable and consequently, no relief could have<br \/>\nbeen granted in the writ appeal. Secondly, it was contended that the issue<br \/>\nrelates to non grant of promotion to the writ appellants on the ground that they<br \/>\nsuffered the punishment of censure which was in operation during the relevant<br \/>\nperiod namely immediately preceding three years from the date when the selection<br \/>\npromotion was made.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. According to the learned counsel for the review petitioner as per the<br \/>\nbye-laws of the society when censure has been listed out as one of the<br \/>\npunishments, having regard to the dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court<br \/>\nreported in 1998 SCC (L &amp; S) 1121 <a href=\"\/doc\/832483\/\">(State of M.P. V. I.A.Qureshi), the<\/a> same would<br \/>\noperate as a bar for considering the writ appellants for promotion. Lastly, it<br \/>\nwas contended that irrespective of the clause in the bye-laws listing out the<br \/>\npenalties as between the candidates who were considered for promotion, one who<br \/>\nsuffered a punishment of censure or any other punishment cannot be equated to<br \/>\nanother employee who served the petitioner society without any blemish and<br \/>\ntherefore, on this ground as well the claim of the writ appellants was not<br \/>\njustified and therefore, no interference was called for to the order of the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. As against the above submissions, Mr.AR.L.Sundarasan, learned senior<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for the writ appellants at the out set contended that the case<br \/>\nof the writ appellants would fall within the criteria laid down in paragraph<br \/>\n21(i) of the Full Bench decision and therefore, the writ petition was<br \/>\nmaintainable. The learned counsel then contended that the Division Bench having<br \/>\nexamined the question whether censure would constitute the punishment and has<br \/>\ntaken a view that the same can only be treated as warning or a minor penalty and<br \/>\nnot a full fledged punishment, no interference is called for in a review<br \/>\npetition. According to the learned senior counsel, the writ appellants having<br \/>\nserved the society for a quite  long time cannot be deprived of their promotion<br \/>\nmerely because of the censure administered on them. Apart from the respective<br \/>\nsubmissions, it is also stated that both the writ appellants were promoted after<br \/>\nthe prohibitive period of three years which was an impediment for considering<br \/>\nthem for further promotion to the post of Assistant Manager.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. In the above said background, when we considered the respective<br \/>\nsubmissions of the learned counsel, as far as the contention regarding the<br \/>\nmaintainability of the writ petition is concerned, a perusal of clause (i) of<br \/>\nparagraph 21 of the Full Bench decision it comes to light that if a particular<br \/>\nCo-operative Society can be characterised as a &#8216;State&#8217; within the meaning of<br \/>\nArticle 12 of the Constitution (applying the tests evolved by the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt), it would also be, &#8216;an authority&#8217; within the meaning and for the purpose<br \/>\nof Article 226 of the Constitution and that in such a situation, even an order<br \/>\npassed by a society in violation of the bye-laws can be corrected by way of Writ<br \/>\nPetition. As far as the tests are concerned the same have been set out in<br \/>\nparagraph 7 of the decision of the Full Bench. The tests as laid down in the<br \/>\nAjay Hasia Case of the Honourable Supreme Court have been reproduced in the said<br \/>\nparagraph. The tests laid down therein broadly set out states that if the entire<br \/>\nshare capital is held by the Government or where the financial assistance of the<br \/>\nState is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure that would afford an<br \/>\nindication of the Co-operative Society being impregnated with governmental<br \/>\ncharacter. With that tests laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in mind<br \/>\nwhen we considered the submission of learned counsel for the writ appellants, it<br \/>\nwas stated that substantial shareholdings of the review petitioners society is<br \/>\nthat of the State Government. That apart, the said issue was not very much in<br \/>\ncontroversy both in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. We are therefore of the view on that ground there is no scope to<br \/>\ncountenance the contention of the review petitioner to interdict with our order<br \/>\npassed in the writ appeal. As far as the contention placed on bye-laws 6, its<br \/>\nproviso and the explanation attached to it, the question is whether the<br \/>\nexpression &#8220;any punishment&#8221; would take within its fold &#8216;censure&#8217; awarded to the<br \/>\nwrit appellants. Under bye-law 19 of the review petitioner&#8217;s bye-laws, it is<br \/>\nstated as under<br \/>\n&#8220;The following penalties may, for &#8216;good and sufficient&#8217; reasons or for<br \/>\n&#8220;misconduct&#8221; be imposed upon on employee:- (i) Censure&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tA reading of bye-law 19 is quite explicit and there is no reason for doubt<br \/>\nthat &#8216;censure&#8217; is one of the penalties prescribed under the bye-laws of the<br \/>\nsociety. In this context, the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1998 SCC<br \/>\n(L &amp; S) 1121 (cited supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the review<br \/>\npetitioner assumes significance. In paragraphs 7 &amp; 8 of the said decision, the<br \/>\nHonourable Supreme Court has stated the legal position in the following words:<br \/>\n&#8220;7.The submission of Shri khanduja is that &#8220;censure&#8221; is only a recorded warning<br \/>\nand does not constitute punishment and, therefore, the directions contained in<br \/>\nthe circular in relation to imposition of minor penalty would not apply and the<br \/>\nTribunal was justified in giving the directions for opening of the sealed cover<br \/>\nand for giving effect to the recommendations of the DPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. We are unable to accept the said contention of the Shri.Khanduja. &#8220;Censure&#8221;<br \/>\ncannot be equated with a warning since under Rule 10 of the M.P. Civil Services<br \/>\n(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, &#8220;censure&#8221; is one of the minor<br \/>\npenalties that can be imposed on a government servant.  It cannot, therefore, be<br \/>\nsaid that the penalty of censure which was imposed on the respondent in the<br \/>\ndepartmental proceedings was not a penalty as contemplated in the circular dated<br \/>\n2.5.1990. Once it is held that a minor penalty has been imposed on the<br \/>\nrespondent in the departmental proceedings, the direction given in the said<br \/>\ncircular would be applicable and the sealed cover containing recommendations of<br \/>\nthe DPC could not be opened and the recommendations of the DPC could not be<br \/>\ngiven effect because the respondent has not been fully exonerated and a minor<br \/>\npenalty has been imposed. The respondent can only be considered for promotion on<br \/>\nprospective basis from a date after the conclusion of the departmental<br \/>\nproceedings.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> (Emphasis added)<\/p>\n<p>\t8. As per the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, even a<br \/>\ncensure which has been prescribed as a &#8216;penalty&#8217; under the rules would certainly<br \/>\noperate as an embargo for considering the case of an employee for promotion. In<br \/>\nother words, a reading of bye-law 19 along with the explanation to clause 6 of<br \/>\nthe bye-laws leads us to hold that even the punishment of censure would come<br \/>\nwithin the mischief word &#8220;any punishment&#8221; described in the explanation to bye-<br \/>\nlaw 6 and consequently, the award of such punishment to an employee would<br \/>\ndeprive such an employee&#8217;s promotion for a period of three years from the date<br \/>\nof imposition of such punishment. Once such a conclusion is in-escapable by<br \/>\napplying the ratio of the Honourable Supreme Court, we have to necessarily<br \/>\nreview our order dated 15.11.2006 and state that even the punishment of censure<br \/>\nshould be construed as one covered by clause 6 of the bye-laws of the review<br \/>\npetitioners society.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Once such a position is ascertained and the same is applied to the case<br \/>\non hand, we find that both the appellants suffered the punishment of censure on<br \/>\n06.03.2003 and 26.09.2003 respectively. Since the panel was drawn on 6.12.2004,<br \/>\nthe punishment of censure did act as an impediment for being considered for<br \/>\nfurther promotion to the post of Assistant Manager.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In view of the said conclusion, no fault can be found on the action of<br \/>\nthe review petitioners in not considering the case of both the writ appellants<br \/>\nwhile effecting promotions in December 2004. Having regard to our conclusion in<br \/>\nthese review petitions, our order dated 15.11.2006 in setting aside the order of<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge stands reviewed and the order of the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge is confirmed. For the reasons set out in this order, the review petitions<br \/>\nare allowed and the writ appeals stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The cost awarded by the learned Single Judge alone is set aside in<br \/>\nview of the fact that both the writ appellants are employees and there were<br \/>\nsubstantial questions of law involved in the writ petition as well as in the<br \/>\nwrit appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. It is reported that both the writ appellants were subsequently<br \/>\npromoted in the normal course in the year 2006. The Review Petitioner in their<br \/>\norder dated 8.3.2007 have stated that the promotions of the writ petitioner<br \/>\nwould be subject to the result of the review petitions. Since we have allowed<br \/>\nboth the review petitions, the promotions accorded to the writ appellants shall<br \/>\nnot in any way be affected by these proceedings. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>sgl<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Registrar of Co-operative Societies,<br \/>\nKilpauk,<br \/>\nChennai-10.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Special Officer vs R.Devendram on 4 April, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04\/4\/2007 CORAM : THE HON&#8217;BLE Mr.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA and THE HON&#8217;BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.VEERARAGHAVAN Rev.Appl.Nos.45,46 of 2006 in W.A.(MD)Nos.81,82 of 2006 The Special Officer, Pudukkottai District Central Co.operative Bank Limited, Pudukkottai. .. Petitioner in both [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-223175","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Special Officer vs R.Devendram on 4 April, 2007 - 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\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Special Officer vs R.Devendram on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-19T20:23:01+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\\\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Special Officer vs R.Devendram on 4 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-19T20:23:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1628,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007\",\"name\":\"The Special Officer vs R.Devendram on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-19T20:23:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Special Officer vs R.Devendram on 4 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"The Special Officer vs R.Devendram on 4 April, 2007 - 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\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Special Officer vs R.Devendram on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-19T20:23:01+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\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Special Officer vs R.Devendram on 4 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-19T20:23:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007"},"wordCount":1628,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007","name":"The Special Officer vs R.Devendram on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-19T20:23:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-officer-vs-r-devendram-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Special Officer vs R.Devendram on 4 April, 2007"}]},{"@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\/223175","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=223175"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223175\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223175"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223175"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223175"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}